Apologetic Discourse

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE
AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION
Text-Critical Studies
Editor
James R. Adair, Jr.
Volume 5
Evidence of the Influence of Apologetic Interests
on the Text of the Canonical Gospels
Wayne C. Kannaday
LEIDEN
BRILL
BOSTON
2004
Wayne C. Kannaday
Copyright 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature

This edition published under license from the Society of Biblical Literature
by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by
means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted
by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should
be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical Literature,
825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kannaday, Wayne Campbell.
Apologetic discourse and the scribal tradition : evidence of the influence of apologetic
interests on the text of the canonical Gospels / by Wayne C. Kannaday.
p. cm. (Society of Biblical Literature text-critical studies ; v. 5)
Includes bibliographical references (p.
) and index.
ISBN 90-04-13085-3 (cloth binding : alk. paper)
1. Bible N.T. GospelsCanon. 2. ApologeticsHistoryEarly church, ca. 30-600. I.
Title. II. Series: Text-critical studies ; v. 5.
BS2555.52.K36 2004
226'.0486dc22
2004017340
ISSN: 1569-3619
Printed in The Netherlands

on acid-free paper
To
Helen and Christopher
a0 ga/phi pro_j gunai/kan mou kai_ uio/n
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Chapter I.
THE PEN AND THE SWORD: APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE

AND THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SCRIBAL INTENTIONALITY AND
THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT: A FORSCHUNGSBERICHT . . . . . . . 5
RELEVANT TEXT-CRITICAL WORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RELEVANT WRITINGS PERTAINING TO
EARLY CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
PAGAN OPPOSITION AND
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Pagan Opposition to Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Pliny, Governor of Bithynia-Pontus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Two Pagan Historians: Tacitus & Suetonius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Other Early Second-Century Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Satirists: Lucian of Samosata and Apuleius of Madaura . . . . . 26
Marcus Cornelius Fronto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Celsus and Alhqh_
/
v Lo/gov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Porphyry of Tyre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Pagan Opposition in Summary:
One Side of the Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Christian Apologetic Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Earliest Christian Apologists:
Quadratus and Aristides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Justin Martyr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Tatian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Athenagoras of Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Theophilus of Antioch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Melito of Sardis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Clement of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Select Latin Apologists: Tertullian and Minucius Felix . . . . . . 54
IN SUMMARY: A PROFILE OF APOLOGETIC INTERESTS . . . . . . . 56
Chapter II.
ANTIQUITY, HARMONY, AND

FACTUAL CONSISTENCY: ISSUES OF
INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
THE PAGAN ACCUSATION OF NOVELTY AND THE
APOLOGETIC CLAIM TO ANTIQUITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
vii
viii
Table of Contents
VARIANT READINGS RELATED TO PROPHECY
AND ANTIQUITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXCURSUS: THE TEMPORAL PRIORITY OF JESUS
TO JOHN THE BAPTIZER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PAGAN CRITICISM OF INCONSISTENCY AND
CHRISTIAN HARMONIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HARMONIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VARIANT READINGS RELATED TO ISSUES OF
TEXTUAL HARMONY AND CONSISTENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
78
82
86
90
99
Chapter III. JESUS: ACCORDING TO THE SCRIBES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VARIANT READINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Folly of the Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Author of This Sedition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Carpenter by Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Magician and A Deceiver of the People . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Man of Profane Temperament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
101
104
105
111
117
119
129
139
Chapter IV. FANATICS, FOOLS, AND FEMALES: SCRIBES

IN DEFENSE OF THE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS . . . . . . . . . .
Regarding the Fanatics Who Followed Jesus . . . . . . . . . . .
Regarding the Fools Who Followed Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Females Who Followed Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ALLS WELL THAT ENDS WELL: MARK 16:920 . . . . . . . . . . .
The Shorter Ending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Longer Ending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Freer Logion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
141
148
148
166
176
189
192
193
196
196
Chapter V.
WHEN QUIRE MEETS EMPIRE: SCRIBAL

TRADITION AND THE ROMAN STATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXCURSUS: WHY WERE EARLY CHRISTIANS
PERSECUTED? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHRISTIANS THROUGH THE EYES OF PAGAN DESPISERS . . . .
CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS AND THE ROMAN STATE . . . . . . . . .
Kingdom (basilei/a) Language
in the Gospel of Luke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Exoneration of Pilate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Secrecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scribal Characterization of Opponents as Evil . . . . . . . . . .
199
200
206
208
210
210
216
226
231
Table of Contents
ix
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Chapter VI. THE INFLUENCE OF APOLOGETIC INTERESTS
ON THE TEXT OF THE CANONICAL GOSPELS . . . . . . . .
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Textual Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methodological Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Historical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
237
244
244
245
247
249
Chapter VII. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My deep thanks are due those whose influence, encouragement, and effort have
contributed to the publication of this volume. Although many more persons than I
can name here deserve to be mentioned, I would be remiss if I did not recognize some
of those without whose assistance and support this book would not have come into
print.
Great thanks are due Elizabeth Clark, Paul Meyer, Zlatko Plese, and Moody Smith
who were dutiful and helpful in their challenges and suggestions regarding this work
in its previous life as my dissertation for the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. Not enough can be said about the dedicated and tireless labors of my doctoral
advisor and mentor, Bart D. Ehrman, whose many and able capacities as a teacher,
editor, scholar, debater, wordsmith, textual critic, and motivator have left an indelible
mark upon this work. My efforts to emulate his patient direction, erudite scholarship,
and disciplined encouragement, like those of a scribe following his exemplar, may
readily be discerned in the pages that follow.
I also wish to thank members of the staff of the Society of Biblical Literature
responsible for bringing this book to press, especially Jimmy Adair for promoting the
Text-Critical Studies series in which this volume appears, and Leigh Anderson for her
capable editorial assistance and patience. Also, let me express my deep appreciation
to Ellen Roueche, who with diligence and perspicacious attention to detail produced
the camera-ready manuscript. Of course, responsibility for the inevitable deficiencies
of this study rest solely with me, and serve as yet another instance of textual
corruption.
My colleagues at Newberry College, in particular Mike Beggs, Russell Kleckley
(now of Augsburg College), Garth Kemmerling (retired), and Jesse Scott, have also
contributed to this book in numerous ways, not least of which was their willingness
to be saddled with additional departmental responsibilities in order to afford me time
to complete this study.
Finally, I am compelled to declare my appreciation to my remarkable wife, Helen,
and my wonderful son, Christopher, by dedicating this book to them. They have
borne much in the way of burden and responsibility as I have labored over the
keyboard to bring this volume to a conclusion, but they have responded consistently
with love and humor.
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB
ABD
ABRL
ANF
ANRW
ANTC
AthR
Bib
BJRL
CSCO
ExpTim
FC
GCS
HeyJ
HibJ
HTR
ICC
IGNTP
JBL
JECS
JJS
JQR
JTS
LCL
NICNT
NIGTC
NovT
NovTSup
NTS
NTTS
OECT
RB
RelSRev
SBL
SBLMS
SBLNTGF
SBLSP
SC
SD
SecCent
Anchor Bible
Anchor Bible Dictionary
Anchor Bible Reference Library
Ante-Nicene Fathers
Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt. Edited by H. Temporani and W.
Haase. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1972Abingdon New Testament Commentaries
Anglican Theological Review
Biblica
Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Edited by I. B. Chabot
et al. Paris, 1903Expository Times
Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC, 1947Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte
Heythrop Journal
Hibbert Journal
Harvard Theological Review
International Critical Commentary
International Greek New Testament Project
Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Early Christian Studies
Journal of Jewish Studies
Jewish Quarterly Review
Journal of Theological Studies
Loeb Classical Library
New International Commentary on the New Testament
New International Greek Testament Commentary
Novum Testamentum
Novum Testamentum Supplements
New Testament Studies
New Testament Tools and Studies
Oxford Early Christian Texts. Edited by H. Chadwick. Oxford, 1970Revue biblique
Religious Studies Review
Society of Biblical Literature
Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
Society of Biblical Literature The New Testament in the Greek Fathers
Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
Sources chrtiennes. Paris: Cerf, 1943Studies and Documents
Second Century
xii
SJT
SNTSMS
SP
StPatr
ThH
TS
TU
TWNT
TZ
VC
WH
WUNT
ZNW
ZTK
Scottish Journal of Theology

Society for the Study of the New Testament Monograph Series
Sacra Pagina
Studia Patristica
Thologie historique
Texts and Studies
Texte und Untersuchungen
Gerhard Kittel, et al., eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10
Volumes. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, trans.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1964-1976. German edition Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament.
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag.
Theologische Zeitschrift
Vigiliae Christianae
Westcott and Hort. Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A. Introduction to the
New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882.
Reprinted Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988.
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche
Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche
xiii
1
THE PEN AND THE SWORD:
APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE
TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Even in Roman antiquity, the pen sometimes proved mightier than the sword.
With the same intentions as those sticks and stones first cast at Stephen or Saul, sharp
words and piercing polemic drafted during the second and third centuries by pagan
intellectuals were hurled against the early Christian movement. In a world where capital
punishment could be executed in response to innuendo and rumor as swiftly as on the
basis of evidence gleaned from interrogation and reliable information,1 the negative
impressions propagated among the elite and the masses by literate and vocal critics of
the new faith constituted grave danger to the movement and its adherents.
In point of fact, this war of words was waged on a variety of fronts. For example,
Jewish antagonists, representing the religious and cultural wellspring of Christianity,
opposed the new movement on the grounds that Jesus was a sorcerer,2 and that the
new faith constituted an apostatized form of Judaism, an incorrigible prodigal child.3
Even within Christianity itself, civil conflicts broke out in the guise of doctrinal
controversies and internecine factions, later to be identified by the dominant orthodox
See, e.g., Plinys correspondence with Trajan, in which Pliny reports his willingness to
execute Christians on the basis of protocol despite the fact that his own investigation suggested
to him that Christians constituted nothing more than an innocuous superstition. Ep. 96. For
English translations of the relevant texts and an insightful discussion of this correspondence,
see also Stephen Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the First Two Centuries A. D.
Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmische Welt II.23.2 H. Temporani and W. Haase, eds. Berlin and New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980: 10551118.
2
As reported in Justin Martyr, Dial. 69 and the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a. See the
discussion in John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 9398.
3
This is a frequently plowed field. See, however, with direct relationship to this current
work Eldon J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1966).
APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION
party as heresies.4 Nascent Christianity, however, drew perhaps its most formidable
opposition from pagans and Romans, particularly from among intellectual writers.
It is with this aspect of the campaignwith the vigorous exchange that was
generated by some of the greatest minds and most enduring profiles of the second,
third, and fourth centuriesthat this present study is most chiefly concerned. In
particular, it gives attention, first of all, to those who took it upon themselves to direct
criticism toward this new movement, to challenge the intellectual underpinnings of this
new faith, to ridicule its narrative inconsistencies, and to accuse its lack of moral
character; and, second, to those believers who assumed a posture of defense against
those verbal opponents. In short, for the purposes of this present work, I am
interested in the dynamic between defenders of the faith and those pagan intellectuals
who hurled the gauntlet in the face of this novel religion, declaring that its
idiosyncracies were to be disdained and that Christianity would not find in the Roman
worldat least not among its literate elite citizensfertile soil for the logos spermatikos.5
Those who first addressed the cultured despisers of Christianity and offered for
their new faith a reasoned defense are generally identified among scholars of antiquity
as Christian apologists.6 To present such a defense, however, required these
spokespersons to engage pagan intellectuals on disadvantageous ground as they
attempted to argue the merits of their faith within the rational parameters and
rhetorical devices of Greco-Roman philosophy.7 This strategy was, of course, in large
measure reactionary, provoked by the published criticisms of such formidable minds
as Galen, Marcus Aurelius, Fronto, and Celsus, and the far-reaching negative
perceptions represented in such historical works as the Annals of Tacitus and
Suetonius Lives of the Emperors, the clever satires of Lucian and Apuleius, and the
official correspondence between Pliny and Trajan.
For more on this see the classic work of Walter Bauer, Rechtglabigkeit und Ketzerei im ltesten
Christentum. BHT, 10 (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 1934); English translation of
Second Edition (1964, ed. by George Strecker), Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Trans.
Robert Kraft, et al.; ed. Robert Kraft and Gerhard Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); and,
with direct implications for this study, Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New
York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
5
This phrase belongs to Justin Martyr, although he may have been indebted for it to Philo.
For the discussion see H. Chadwick, Justin Martyrs Defence of Christianity, BJRL (47) 1965,
27597, esp. 296.
6
A useful introduction and overview to Christian apologists, particularly those most
relevant to this study, belongs to Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988).
7
Measuring Christianity as a philosophy, the physician Galen determined that their need
for parables rather than reasoned arguments pointed to their inferiority as a philosophical
school or movement. On the other hand, Galen found cause to affirm Christians for their selfdiscipline and courage in the face of death. For texts and discussion see Richard Walzer, Galen
on Jews and Christians (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 1316.
THE PEN AND THE SWORD
So challenged, however, Christian advocates arose in the form of literary

apologists and began, in spite of the hardships and consequences, to cultivate that
unwelcoming earth. Amazinglysomewhat miraculously Justin would saythe seed
sprouted and, like kudzu in southern climates, spread until, in the fourth century, it
won favor with the emperor and thereby conquered his empire. Between Augustus and
Constantine, however, much water would go under the bridge, much ink would be
spilled, and much blood would be shed. Attacks against adherents of this new religion
would be staged in two distinct spheres by two very different kinds of assailants
writers and warriors; but the dynamic between them would be symbiotic and would
proceed in both directions. In no particular order, the war of words would spark the
clash of kingdoms, which would further fuel the duel between the apologists and their
antagonists. Pagan intellectuals would publish criticisms and satires; provincial
governors would issue arrest warrants and death sentences. Still, this Jesus movement
survived; and, in time, under the emblem of the cross, it conquered (in hoc signo vinces).
Despite the fact that history is generally writtenand preservedby the winners
(eventual winners in this case), it is fortunate that the exigencies of the past have
bequeathed to us direct accounts of some of the most important of these critics.
Writings have endured to the present from the pens of the younger Pliny, the
historians Suetonius and Tacitus, the Stoics Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian,
Crescens, Marcus Cornelius Fronto, the satirist Lucian of Samosata, the novelist Lucius
Apuleius, Aelius Aristides, the physician Galen of Pergamum, and, in the quotations
of his respondent Origen, Celsus.8
Meanwhile, certain Christian writings were gaining popularity and authoritative
status within the spreading movement. Gradually, an authoritative canon of
distinctively Christian writings began forming, although the familiar twenty-seven
books would not gain official canonical status until late in the fourth century.9 Among
Stephen Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 10551118. See also Robert Wilken,
The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984).
9
The history of the New Testament canon consists of a complex tale that has merited the
abundant literature on the subject. Well into the second century, when Christians spoke of
scripture they had in mind the Jewish sacred writings, the Tanak. In time, the letters of Paul
were brought together as a collection. In an effort to codify the revered Jesus-traditions, gospels
continued to be composed well into the second century, but the familiar four were held in
particularly high esteem, although when Montanists began to appeal to John dispute over the
Fourth Gospel arose for a time in the West. Following the Eastern disposition to exclude
Revelation, only twenty-six books were recognized as canonical at the Council of Laodicea held
in 363. It was not until four years later, in the Easter letter composed by Bishop Athanasius and
broadcast among the churches of his jurisdiction, that the twenty-seven books current today
were first prescribed as authoritative. Even then, it would remain for the Councils of Hippo in
393 and Carthage in 397 to embrace those same twenty-seven books, even after acknowledging
that Hebrews was not the product of Pauls pen. For more on the New Testament canon see,
e.g., the full scale treatments of Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and
Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); and Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament
these writings, exactly four Gospelsa number Irenaeus believed to be divinely

appointedfound acceptance across the church.10 As these writings became sacred
scripture, copyists became engaged in the labor of duplicating and transmitting these
texts for use among the dispersed faith communities. Though less is known about
these mostly anonymous scribes than is required to pen a thoroughgoing history of
New Testament transmission, the legacy of their handiwork is enough to inform us of
the critical role they played in the expansion of Christianity and the evolution of the
New Testament.11 Textual scholars, therefore, are compelled to study not only
manuscripts and paleography, but are also required to consider the authors and
copyists that produced those texts. Thus, textual criticism is not only a literary
enterprise; it is also a historical discipline.
Yet, for all but the last century, laborers in this field have focused almost
exclusively on the literary aspects of the task. Although the importance of historical
influence on the text of the New Testament has more recently begun to generate
increased interest and is generally recognized today, a measure of the resources
allocated toward this aspect of textual criticism betrays that old habits die hard.
The limits of knowledge and the lack of resources notwithstanding, there is a
sense in which this present project could not have come together until there was first
a convergence of two luminary bodies, until the two related but separate disciplines of
New Testament Textual Criticism and the History of Early Christianity began together
to illuminate the primary sources that constitute the raw material of this study. In the
following survey of the major scholarship that has gradually brick by brick formed a
foundation for this present work, I will make an effort to trace the evolutionary
process that has produced an emerging recognition that New Testament textual
criticism is, in addition to its primary task as a reconstructive literary discipline, also a
serviceable tool for the historian.12 Following this Forschungsbericht, I will include a brief
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). For briefer treatments and overviews see, e.g., Harry
Y. Gamble, The Canon of the New Testament, in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters,
Eldon J. Epp and George W. MacRae, eds. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 20143; Helmut
Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, vol. 2 (New York and Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1987), 115; and the astute questions of James D. G. Dunn in his Unity and Diversity
in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Second Edition; London:
SCM Press, 1990), 37488.
10
Adv. Haer. 3.11.8.
11
For a useful and provocative study on scribes in antiquity see Kim Haines-Eitzen,
Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford/ New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
12
It is unnecessary here, however, to reinvent the wheel. Several fine Forschungsberichte exist
already and are best deferred to rather than reworked. See especially J. Neville Birdsall, The
Recent History of New Testament Textual Criticism (from Westcott and Hort, 1881, to the
Present), ANRW II.26.1., 99197; Jacobus H. Petzer, The History of the New Testament
TextIts Reconstruction, Significance, and Use in New Testament Textual Criticism, in B.
Aland and J. Delobel, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Church History: A
introduction to the principle historical figures whose writings establish the parameters
and contours of pagan opposition and apologetic response, before moving on in
subsequent chapters to an examination of how features of this discourse show
themselves in the activity of some of the parties responsible for transmitting the text
of the New Testament.
SCRIBAL INTENTIONALITY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT:
A FORSCHUNGSBERICHT
RELEVANT TEXT-CRITICAL WORKS
The need for textual criticism of the New Testament stems from a combination
of factors.13 Most fundamental is the historical fact that the autographs, probably
written on papyrus, have all perished; thus, we do not possess in any single manuscript
form the original New Testament. In addition, during the subsequent 1400 years in
which the New Testament was copied exclusively by hand and thereby transmitted,
those very copyists (scribes) frequently introduced into the text (and then further
transmitted) errors of accident or omission. In some instancesprobably with the idea
of correcting themscribes also intentionally altered their exemplars.
There are now extant, in whole or in part, some 5,500 Greek manuscripts of the
New Testament, almost 2400 of which contain some part of the Gospels.14 In addition
Discussion of Methods (Kampen: Pharos, 1994), 1136. Dated but rich bibliographies worth mining
are located in Bruce M. Metzger, Annotated Bibliography of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,
19141939 (Copenhagen, 1955) and idem, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism
(Leiden and Grand Rapids, 1963). In addition to these are the overviews located in primers of
textual criticism, notably Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration (Third Enlarged Edition; New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1992), Part Two, 93146; and Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament
(Second Edition, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 347. See also
the recent volume of essays generated in honor of Bruce M. Metzger in Bart D. Ehrman and
Michael W. Holmes, eds. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status
Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995). These essays represent the efforts of top
textual scholars to summarize and report on the current state of various issues related to the
discipline of New Testament textual criticism.
13
For a fuller discussion see the primers on textual criticism by B. M. Metzger and K. and
B. Aland referred to in the previous note.
14
Exact numbers are hard to come by. The total number of manuscripts now stands at
5,487 according to the official registry of manuscripts maintained by Aland in the Institute for
New Testament Textual Research, it states in K. and B. Aland, Text of the New Testament, 73.
More recently, D. C. Parker amended that number upward. He reports that the present
catalogue consists of ninety-five papyri (forty-five of which contain Gospel material), 196
majuscules that contain Gospel material (he does not provide a total number), 2,856 minuscules
(2,145 of which contain Gospel material), and 2,403 lectionaries, the majority of which contain
Gospel readings. Idem, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
there exist hundreds of copies of ancient translations of Christian scriptures (not

counting over 8000 copies of the Latin Vulgate)Versional Witnesses they are
labeledplus the evidence from the citations of the New Testament in the writings
of early church fathers. In practical terms, however, these constitute a poverty of
riches, forexcept for the smallest fragmentsno two manuscripts anywhere in
existence are exactly alike.15
The task of the textual critic, therefore, initially, is to sift through all this material,
carefully collating each manuscript or source with all the others. This is done in order
to detect and recognize possible errors and changes in the text, with an eye toward
determining which variant reading at any given point is more likely to be the
original.16
Textual criticism, then, is typically identified, as in these words of Gordon Fee, as
the science that compares all known manuscripts of a given work in an effort to trace
the history of variations within the given text so as to discover its original form.17 Fee
further recognizes that textual criticism interests the biblical interpreter in at least three
ways. First, textual criticism attempts to determine the authentic words of the author.
The question the exegete must ask prior to What does the text mean? is What does
the text say? Secondly, since most readers have access to the text only in translation,
a translators first concern must be that she or he is translating the actual words the
author wrote. Third, a knowledge of the history of textual variation will also help the
1997), 813
15
Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings
(Second Edition; New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 443.
16
Yet, some practitioners of this discipline, for good reason, deny the possibility of
obtaining the original text. For a forthright and compelling discussion of the problems related
to the term original and the historical restrictions that limit the text scholars can realistically
reconstruct see William L. Petersen, What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism
Ultimately Reach? in New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History, B. Aland
and J. Delobel, eds. (Kampen: Pharos, 1994), 13652. In that same volume see also Jacobus
Petzer, The History of the New Testament TextIts Reconstruction, Significance and Use
in New Testament Textual Criticism, 1136, where he notes that the identity of the original
text has not received its due attention within the practice of the discipline, and adds, What is
certain, is that we are not reconstructing the autographs, for New Testament scholarship is
slowly but certainly coming to realize that autograph is a much more complex concept than
generally anticipated (36). In regard for the complexities of this issue, I will throughout this
work distinguish this use of the term original by enclosing it within quotation marks.
17
Gordon Fee, Textual Criticism of the New Testament, in Eldon Epp and Gordon Fee,
eds. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1993), 3. Over the years textual criticism has commonly been known as lower
criticism in contrast to the so-called higher (historical and literary) criticism. Although this
distinction was intended to refer to the foundational nature of textual criticism, i.e., that one
cannot analyze a text literarily or historically until one has determined what that text is, in
practice textual criticism was frequently looked upon as a necessary but tedious and
underappreciated sub-specialty of New Testament studies.
interpreter see how a passage was understood during the early history of the church.
In many instances variant readings are a reflection of a scribes or a churchs
theological interests, and sometimes such changes put one in direct contact with
historical exegesis.
It is Fees third point that represents a presumably secondary task for the textual
critic, but one which is steadily gaining attention within the discipline. For example,
Eldon Epp, in his appraisal of the influence of history upon text, declared, For too
long the text of the New Testament has been conceived in static terms.18 In the
fashion of a storm, he described the tumultuous context in which the text arose, and
insisted that copies of New Testament books were circulating within these complex
situations and were interactive with them.
It is within this background of dynamic movement, development, and controversy
that the earliest New Testament manuscripts must be examined, foras has long
been asserted but too little exercisedthe text of the NT in its earliest stages was a
vibrant, living text that functioned dynamically within the developing church. Textual
criticism, therefore, can never be understood apart from the history of the church.19
This added impulse within the discipline, however, did not begin to bud until the early
part of the twentieth century.
Prior to 1881, textual criticism was dominated by the Elzivir edition of Erasmus
1516 collation of the Greek New Testament, the so-called Textus Receptus (TR).
To be sure, there were occasional forays against that dominance, as attested by the
pioneering efforts of Johannes Albrecht Bengel (16871752) and J. J. Griesbach
(17451812), both of whom published important editions of the Greek New
Testament. Although Bengel (1734) for the most part reproduced the text of Erasmus,
he introduced a critical apparatus that classified and evaluated variant readings. On this
basis, some scholars credit him with the birth of modern scientific textual criticism.20
Griesbachs edition (177577) was noteworthy because it departed, for the first time
in Germany, from dependence on the TR. For the most part, however, whatever fresh
insights crept into the discipline were usually the result of newly discovered
manuscripts unearthed by such pioneers as Constantine von Tischendorf (18151874).
18
Eldon J. Epp, The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New
Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission, in William
Petersen, ed. Gospel Traditions of the Second Century (Notre Dame and London: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1989), 75. For later reference, it should be noted that here Epp contends against
the position of Kurt Aland that there existed by the early third century three identifiable texttypes.
19
E. Epp, Significance of the Papyri,75.
20
See, e.g., their informing comparison of the relative contributions of Bengel and
Griesbach, which conclude to the advantage of Bengel, in K. and B. Aland, Text of the New
Testament, 911. But for the view that the importance of Griesbach cannot be overestimated see
B. M. Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 119121.
Although the true measure of Tischendorfs labors on behalf of the enterprise of New
Testament textual criticism can never be calculated fully, most scholars agree that his
fame rests more upon his collection of textual evidence than in his compiled editions.
Still, the critical apparatus of his final edition of Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava
critica maior remains unsurpassed, probably not to be finally outdone until the
completion of the apparatus being assembled under the auspices of the International
Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP).
In that watershed year of 1881, however, after twenty-eight years of collaborative
labor, Fenton John Anthony Hort and Brooke Foss Westcott published a bold new
edition they brashly labeled The New Testament in the Original Greek, a version
based on a much more numerous and widely diverse collection of manuscripts than
had been at the disposal of Erasmus. Published the following year to accompany this
new compilation was an Introduction that articulated the theoretical foundation
underpinning their work and that proved to be a trail blazing epic.21 Their masterful
knowledge and treatment of the documents, arduous attention to detail, creative
assertion of ground-breaking theory, and eloquent prose represented a pinnacle of
scholarship seldom attained in any discipline, and certainly one that cast a redefining
spell upon New Testament textual criticism, the influence of which continues to the
present.
Despite their erudition and methodological precision, however, the work of
Westcott and Hort was plagued by two ill-determined presuppositions. One was their
veneration of their so-called Neutral text, which in large measure consisted of the
confluence of the Codices Sinaiticus () and Vaticanus (B). So devoted to this textual
tradition were they that, when confronted with a few shorter texts in the Western
tradition that appeared original with respect to the modified Neutral readings, they
could not bring themselves to label them as Neutral Interpolations or NonWestern Interpolations, but gave them the clumsy appellation, Western Noninterpolations.22
A second and, for this project, more misleading assertion consisted of their sure
pronouncement that
21
B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988; Originally published in New York: Harper & Brothers,
1882).
22
Discussions on the topic of Western Non-Interpolations have become a cottage
industry for textual scholars. Several of these readings will be considered in the frame of this
study. For a sampler of treatments see Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 17577; B. M. Metzger,
Text, 134; Kurt Aland, Die Bedeutung des P75 fr den Text des Neuen Testaments: Ein Beitrag
zur Frage des Western non-interpolations, in Studien zur berlieferung des Neuen Testaments und
seines Textes, Kurt Aland, ed. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967), 15572 and idem and Barbara
Aland, Text, 33, 37, 236, 311 (both of which offer a consistently negative appraisal of WH
throughout); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (IIX) (AB 28; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1981), 13031; and Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York
and London: Oxford University Press, 1993), 22328.
there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes. The
license of paraphrase occasionally assumes the appearance of wilful corruption, where
scribes allowed themselves to change language which they thought capable of
dangerous misconstruction; or attempted to correct apparent errors which they
doubtless assumed to be due to previous transcription; or embodied in explicit words
a meaning which they supposed to be implied....Accusations of wilful tampering are
accordingly not unfrequent in Christian antiquity: but, with a single exception [later
identified as Marcion], wherever they can be verified they prove to be groundless,
being in fact hasty and unjust inferences from mere diversities of inherited text.23
Here Hort, the chief architect of the Introduction and the greater genius behind
the project, leaned too far in the conservative direction. In playing his hand so close
to the vest, he wagered wrongly that scribes constituted benign participants in the
transmission of the New Testament text. It will be seen again in the course of this
study, as has been ably demonstrated previously by others, that scribes were sentient
beings living in a world that was hostile to the text they were charged with duplicating.
Usually, to be sure, they carried out their work as passive transmitters; it has even been
shown that a copyist could presumably reproduce a text even when he could not read
or understand it.24 Sometimes, however, scribes took on the unsupervised role of
creative consultant, and transposed their exemplars in accord with a tune pulsating in
their minds. Thus, in the same sense that the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand
that rules the world, from the perspective of the historian, the scribes pen was
mightier than the evangelists word. No autograph has survived the exigencies of
history. Only transmitted copies of the Christian scriptures have made their way into
the third millennium. It is the products of scribes, not those of the evangelists, that
have endured.
Still, until the turn of the century, textual critics were driven almost exclusively by
the singular ambition to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament. Like
accountants poring over spreadsheets, scholars collated manuscripts, scrolled, screened
and scrutinized variants according to the canons of the discipline and in light of
external evidence and internal probabilities, and, all too finally, selected one reading as
the most likely representative of the autograph. All the rest of the variants were
summarily dismissed, like so many wood chips at a carpenters bench, as scribal
23
WH, 2823. To be fair to Hort, though, he was able to acknowledge, at least, that
dogmatic preferences to a great extent determined theologians, and probably scribes, in their
choice between rival readings already in existence (283). It would have been a short walk, then,
had a scholar of the magnitude of Hort been confronted with some of the evidence and studies
in currency today for him to have reversed his path on this position. Also on this quote by Hort,
see the insightful discussion of Hort on this point in Epp, Theological Tendency, 14.
24
See Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters, e.g. 36, particularly with reference to her
discussion of the visionary command given the Shepherd of Hermas to copy a book and his
response that ...I copied everything letter by letter because I could not find the syllables (Shep.,
vis. 2.1.4).
10
infelicities. Scribes were viewed as disinterested copyists, albeit very human ones,
capable of errors of omission and commission born of fatigue, tedium, and visual or
mental lapses.
As early as 1904, scholars began to question the assertion of Westcott and Hort
and sense the potential value of examining such scribal debris for the clues it might
offer.25 J. Rendel Harris was a leader among those, and his treatment of certain variant
readings began to challenge Horts claim to a lack of dogmatic influence on the
transmission of the New Testament text. In the early part of the twentieth century he
published two articles in which he identified variant readings that he argued were the
product of theological concerns and anti-Jewish attitudes.26 For example, Harris
discerned in the scribal changes to Luke 4:16 a clear example where dogmatic
(Marcionite) influence had left an enduring mark on the text, and he followed Vogels
in arguing that Jesus prayer of forgiveness from the cross (Luke 23:34) owed its
secondary excision to an anti-Judaic reaction prevalent in the second century.27 Such
evidence led Harris to voice with astute candor:
The evangelical stream is demonstrably discolored by the media through which it
passes. The Bible of any given church becomes affected by the church in which it
circulates. The people who handle the text leave their finger-prints on the pages, and
the trained detective can identify the criminal who made the marks.28
For generations, however, scholarship was slow to advance the baton past the
quarter run by Harris. One notable exception was Burnett Hillman Streeter, who
published in 1924 the first of eleven impressions of his classic work, The Four Gospels.29
Although this volume is best known for its influential treatment of the Synoptic
25
Kirsopp Lake, The Influence of Textual Criticism on the Exegesis of the New Testament (Oxford:
Parker and Sons, 1904), 127. This small book consists of Lakes inaugural lecture at the
University of Leiden, delivered on January 27, 1904. Best known as the lecture in which he
called Westcott and Horts efforts to construct the Original Greek of the New Testament text
a failure, though a splendid one, the substance of the lecture dealt with a series of variant
readings which he argued were the products of doctrinally motivated adaptation on the part of
scribes. Specifically, Lake brings into question the Trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew
28:19, as well as two other texts that prescribe baptism as incumbent for Christian initiates:
Mark 16:16 (a spurious text) and John 3:5 (with regard to which Lake argues that of water and
have been added to the verse to impose baptismal doctrine on the verse). I confine this material
to the notes because it is not directly related to apologetic interests, but I preserve it nevertheless
for its keen insight.
26
J. Rendel Harris, New Points of View in Textual Criticism, The Expositor 8/7 (1914)
31634; and idem, Was the Diatessaron Anti-Judaic? HTR 18 (1925) 10309.
27
J. R. Harris, HTR, 104 and 106.
28
J. R. Harris, HTR, 103.
29
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources,
Authorship, and Dates (London: Macmillan, 1924; Eleventh Edition; New York: St. Martins
Press, 1964).
11
Problem, Streeter sought to lay the foundation for his arguments in an interface of
specialities, including textual criticism, source analysis, and the cultural background of
early Christianity.30 With a strategy not unlike that later used by Walter Bauer in
Orthodoxy and Heresy, the first tool Streeter employed in his analysis of textual traditions
was a map. He proposed a theory of local texts, in which he associated specific
textual traditions with particular localities, usually major urban centers important to
Christianity. Streeter, along with Kirsopp Lake and his associates, was largely
responsible for identifying the Caesarean text, of which Codex Koridethi (Q) was
said to be its best representative.31 In prefaces to subsequent editions of his magnum
opus, Streeter discussed how recent manuscript discoveries and scholarship had served
to confirm their notions about the Caesarean text. He labored also, with the utmost
respect for the epoch-making character of the accomplishments of Westcott and Hort,
to refine and correct their work. For example, where they labeled as Neutral the
textual tradition represented by Sinaiticus () and Vaticanus (B), Streeter identified it
as the local text of Alexandria.32
Streeter discerned that there existed a symbiotic connection between the history
of the text, the establishment of the canon, and the formulation of doctrine. On the
basis of this inseparable association, Streeter asserted that three questions always face
the textual critic:
(1) He must account for the great divergence between the types of text current in the
second, third and fourth centuries. (2) He must explain the origin of the Byzantine
standard text and the process by which it replaced the other types. (3) Finally, in the
light of the conclusions reached on these two points, he must endeavour to
determine which of these types of text, or what kind of combination of them, will
represent most nearly the text of the Gospels as they left the hands of their several
authors. The third problem is of course much the most important; but he cannot
hope to solve it rightly unless he has first found a reasonably satisfactory solution to
the other two.33
Represented in Streeters work, then, was a clear sense that any investigation into
the textual tradition of the New Testament, the development of the Christian canon,
or the evolution of the church necessitated, in fact, the study of a mutual history.
D. W. Riddle also saw the wisdom of treating textual criticism as a historical
enterprise as well as a literary labor.34 Heralding with bold expression a view ahead of
its time, Riddle asserted:
30
B. H. Streeter, Four Gospels, xxvii.

B. H. Streeter, Four Gospels, viix, 77107.
32
B. H. Streeter, Four Gospels, 27 f., 5464. See p. 34, for his estimation of Hort, about
whom he states, There is no greater name in the history of Textual Criticism.
33
B. H. Streeter, Four Gospels, 3031.
34
D. W. Riddle, Textual Criticism as a Historical Discipline, AngThR 18 (1936) 22033.
31
12

The legitimate task of textual criticism is not limited to the recovery of approximately
the original form of the documents, to the establishment of the best text, nor to
the elimination of spurious readings. It must be recognized that every significant
variant records a religious experience which brought it into being. This means that
there are no spurious readings: the various forms of the text are sources for the
study of the history of Christianity.35
The train of thought put into motion by Harris and fueled by Riddle gained added
momentum near the middle of the century. During the Schweich Lectures he delivered
in 1946, Gnther Zuntz in rendering an appraisal of the current state of textual
criticism, declared, The recovery of the original text, if it is to be attempted
scientifically, depends upon the illumination of its history in the second century.36
A. F. J. Klijn, in 1949, similarly insisted that no final judgment could be made on the
original text until each reading in it was checked for its linguistic, tendentious, or
other peculiarities.37 During that same decade, E. L. Titus completed his unpublished
but frequently cited dissertation in which he investigated what motivations lay behind
modifications made to the New Testament by two early Greek apologists, Justin and
Clement of Alexandria.38
The fifties saw others once again hoist the banner previously borne by Riddle. C.
S. C. Williams introduced his study of variant readings in the Synoptic Gospels and
Acts with the statement, The possibility that many of the variant readings of the text
of our New Testament are due to intentional alteration by scribes does not seem to
have received the attention that it deserves.39 In the course of his study he attributed
certain variant readings to various motivations, including harmonization, grammar and
style, clarification, the effort to avoid offense, and various tendentious or reverential
purposes. Merrill Parvis identified all variant readings (here he was not referring to
accidents or errors) to be products of Christian thought and therefore clues to its
history. He went so far as to label them interpretations, and he noted that they were
considered significant enough somewhere by someone to be incorporated into the
35
D. W. Riddle, Textual Criticism as a Historical Discipline, 221.

G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum (London: Oxford
University Press, 1953), 11.
37
A. F. J. Klijn, A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts (Utrecht,
1949), 168.
38
E. L. Titus, The Motivation of Changes Made in the New Testament Text by Justin
Martyr and Clement of Alexandria: A Study in the Origin of New Testament Variation
(Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1942).
39
C. S. C. Williams, Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1951). Williams also contributed an in-depth treatment of a number of significant
variant readings, many of which possess relevance for this study and will be discussed in context
below.
36
13
sacred scriptures.40 He even theorized the possibility of realigning textual affinities on

the basis of certain specific doctrines reflected within the manuscripts.
That same year Leon Wright went to press with a study of modifications to the
words of Jesus as they were presented in various second-century writings, including
apostolic fathers and Christian apologists.41 Wright classified his findings under the
following headings: Prudential Motivation, Contextual Adaptation, Harmonistic,
Stylistic, Explanatory, Ethical and Practical, Dogmatic, and Heretical Adaptation. Each
category represented for him a motivating force that had been at work reshaping the
New Testament voice of Jesus. In preparing his readers for what they would find in
his book, Wright declared, We shall observe in this material, also, the ubiquitous
operation of special interests competing for priority in the maturing life of the
Christian church.42
The impact such studies were making on the field had not overtaken the field, but
they were gaining ground. On one hand, as late as the sixties, there continued to
appear in primers on the New Testament and on Textual Criticism statements that
echoed the sentiments of Hort.43 To illustrate, wrote Harold Greenlee, No Christian
doctrine...hangs upon a debatable text.44 On the other hand, this decade produced
works that were giving greater attention and increasing importance to the historical
implications of textual studies. Kenneth W. Clarks published presidential address to
the 1965 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature serves as a case in point.45 He
declared that, although scribes should not be accused of falsification and fraud, the
insistence that textual variation never resulted from the influence of doctrinal interests
upon scribes represented a false assurance.46 Clark went on to identify the phantom
nature of the original text, arguing that such a text never existed in such a way as to
40
Merrill M. Parvis, The Nature and Tasks of New Testament Textual Criticism: An
Appraisal, JRel 32 (1952), 16574, esp. 172.
41
Leon Wright, Alterations of the Words of Jesus As Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952).
42
L. Wright, Alterations to the Words of Jesus, 13.
43
See, e.g., J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 1964); Howard C. Kee, Franklin W. Young, and Karlfried Froelich, Understanding
the New Testament (2nd edition; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965).
44
J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 68.
45
Kenneth W. Clark, The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism
of the Greek New Testament, JBL 85 (1966) 116.
46
K. W. Clark stated:
Many of the denials that textual variation is harmful to the faith are truly denials of
allegations never made. We can agree with Hort that perceptible fraud is not
evident in textual alteration....But these are heinous faults we should never allege and
these are not the terms that we should employ. Willful and deliberate, yes. But not
tampering, falsification, and fraud. Alteration, yes; but not corruption. Emendation,
yes; but not in bad faith.
Idem, Theological Relevance of Textual Variation, 5.
14
become established and fixed. Moreover he joined those who recognized the
historically revealing significance of those readings determined not to be the original.
The textual critic must recognize the fluidity and theological vitality in Scriptural
accounts, and move on from isolated words to the broader context....Furthermore,
our attention to original text must not eclipse the valuable theological insight in
textual deviation early and late.47
Clark saw this opportunity as a call to reorganize the labors of the distinct disciplines
of textual criticism, ecclesiastical history, and theological studies into more
collaborative enterprises.
Relevant and useful insights materialized from corners outside textual criticism,
as well. Many of the ideas C. F. D. Moule expressed with regard to Tendenzkritik and
Form Criticism may apply equally well to certain scribal modifications. I am thinking
here of his statement:
If it can be established that a document was written with a clear propagandistic
purpose, then it becomes probable (other things being equal) that its writer bent the
facts, or made a tendentious selection from among them, to fit his purpose; and it is
therefore necessary to make allowances for such distortion, in any attempt to get
back to the truth about what actually happened. Accordingly, a question of prime importance for the historian in interpreting a document and estimating its worth is,
What was this document for? What did its author hope to achieve by it? 48
Moules questions may be especially useful if redirected to those textual variants

determined to be intentional in origin. After all, an intentional variant, it may be
argued, is no longer the act of a scribe but an author. In considering transcriptional
probabilities, then, the textual critic should do more than measure the greater
likelihood of scribal activity; she or he should also consider the breadth of options for
why that scribe may have composed that reading. Although it is inevitable that some
conjecture will creep into the calculus, in many cases the hypothesis can be weighed
against more reliable constants. As will be seen in the course of this study, I have made
an effort to balance conjectural possibilities with reasoned plausibilities and, in a few
important cases, transparent certainties. As a further example, Moule explains the form
critical principle that when the apparent purpose in the life of the church of a specific
form unit appears to be apologetic or propagandistic, then one must reckon with the
possibility that the contents of the unit were shaped and modified so as to enhance its
force: the size of a miracle or the effect of a polemical saying may be exaggerated; and
so forth.49
47
K. W. Clark, Theological Relevance of Textual Variation, 16.

C. F. D. Moule, Some Observations on Tendenzkritik, in Ernst Bammel and idem, eds.
Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 91.
49
C. F. D. Moule, Some Observations on Tendenzkritik, 91100.
48
15
By 1966 the stars finally achieved complete alignment when Eldon J. Epp
presided over the union of Textual Criticism and Early Christian History in the
publication of his study of the text of Acts in Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis.50 In
reporting the findings of his full-scale investigation into what he perceived to be a
theological tendency in Codex D, Epp argued that nearly forty percent of the variant
readings in this codexs reproduction of Lukes second volume could be attributed to
an anti-Judaic bias.
Epps contention, though carefully configured and thoughtfully argued, was not
embraced by the academy with unanimous consent. C. K. Barrett, for example,
revisited Epps thesis and concluded that he overstated the case. First of all, Barrett
claimed that many of the modifications to Acts located in Codex D could best be
explained as efforts simply to increase interest, heighten tension, to make descriptions
more vivid, in a word, to brighten the colours of Lukes narrative, where no
theological, ecclesiastical, racial, or any such interest in involved.51 Second, in
disagreeing with Epps particular claim of locating in Bezae an anti-Judaic tendency,
Barrett asserted that the tendency to anti-Judaism resides already in Luke, and that the
essential characteristic of Codex D is its tendency to exaggerate tendencies that already
exist in the text. In this sense, Barrett believed, the canonical text of Acts in Bezae
shared much in common with the apocryphal Acts.
In my judgment, Barretts detailed reflection serves us well in issuing a caveat with
regard to the temptation to reduce or define the product of any single scribe or Codex
or text-type to any single tendency or bias. Moreover, we must be wary of simply
finding what we go out searching for, whether that be scribal products born of antiJudaic tendencies or those wrought by apologetic interests. That said, there are times
when Barretts disagreement with Epp seems semantic if not superficial. Epp is not
attempting to restrict all anti-Judaic language to the scribe responsible for Codex
Bezae; what he is trying to do is gather a number of variant readings that, in his
estimation, can be explained best as the result of an anti-Judaic bias on the part of the
copyist. Like Barrett, some scholars may take exception to his treatment of a particular
variant, but there is hardly sufficient reason to dismiss his thesis. Indeed, for the most
part, current scholarship continues to refer to Epps volume with due recognition of
its insights. Some scribes in the act of transcribing the text of the New Testament did,
in fact, alter their exemplars out of some conscious bias or deliberate motive, and, as
Epps research sufficiently shows, one of these conscious motives leading some
copyists to corrupt the text was that of an anti-Judaic bias. Epps work is best
understood, as he himself says, as seeking to uncover reasons for deviations within the
50
Eldon J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Cantabrigiensis in Acts (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1966).
51
C. K. Barrett, Is There a Theological Tendency in Codex Bezae? in Text and
Interpretation; Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black. Ernest Best and R. McL.
Wilson, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 1527. The quotation stems from
p. 22.
16
broader work of reconstructing the history of the transmission of the text. Thus, he
states that, even if the original text of the New Testament was suddenly located, the
discipline of textual criticism would not cease.
But with variant texts, there would remain the valid task of tracing the development
of the variants in the history of textual transmission and of attempting to uncover
reasons for the deviations. After all, these variant texts were for some Christians at
some time and place the original text; it would be a denial of history to ignore them
under any circumstances.52
This fresh collaboration between historical inquiry and textual criticism has also
provided illumination for recent investigation into the relationship of women to the
early church. Current scholarship generally agrees that, although the early church
admitted women into positions of authority and leadership, by early in the second
century a concerted effort was under way within evolving Christianity to suppress
women.53 Investigation into a number of textual variants shows support for this
contention. For example, Elisabeth Schssler Fiorenza cites a number of passages
from Acts that betray an agenda on the part of some scribes to reconfigure by way of
reduction the place of women in the stories of Christian scripture.54 Also, two brief but
important studies by Ben Witherington have exposed additional textual data that
reflects this bias against women.55 For example, Witherington argues that the shift in
pronoun from singular to plural by some copyists of Luke 8:3 represents a deliberate
effort on the part of some scribes to redefine the role of the women listed there.
Rather than being persons who served him (Jesus) as his financial benefactors, the
reassignment of their service to them (the disciples) relegated the women to more
traditional roles within the home and as caretakers of the menfolk.
Another of these interdisciplinary studies has shown that internecine theological
controversies also affected the transmission of the New Testament text. In his 1993
monograph entitled The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman demonstrated with
compelling force that a large number of variant readings in the canonical text were the
products of scribes attuned to the christological controversies of the second and third
centuries.56 He argued that scores of intentional readings were generated in direct
52
E. J. Epp, Theological Tendency, 13.

See, e.g., Karen Jo Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Womens Leadership in the Early
Church and the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1993).
54
E. S. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1994).
55
Ben Witherington, On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other
DisciplesLuke 8:13, ZNW 70 (1979), 24348; and idem, The Anti-Feminist Tendency in
the Western Text in Acts, JBL 103 (March, 1984) 8284.
56
Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological
Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York and London: Oxford University Press,
1993).
53
17
response to various heresies, and could thus be recognized and classified on the
basis of their precipitating motivation as anti-docetic, anti-separationist, antiadoptionist, and anti-patripassianist. Based on his study, he concluded that copiers of
the text who subscribed to proto-orthodox beliefs altered the text to make it say
what they already thought it meant.57 That same year, Peter Head discussed a series of
variant readings that he argued reflected what he called a reverential motivation on
the part of the scribes who generated them.58
Even more recently, D. C. Parker contributed a volume dedicated to underscoring and understanding the causes behind the incidence of conscious alteration to
the text.59 One of the many fruitful avenues he pursued in this book was his
insistence that the responsibilities assigned text critics must not be restricted to the
singular purpose of reconstructing the original New Testament. For him,
The task of textual criticism consists of collecting evidence and evaluating it. Its
contribution in gathering information about early Christian documents is beyond
question. It is evidently important then to discern the appropriate question and ask
it of the data.60
This insistence of Parker that textual critics must evaluate as well as collect textual
evidence has been taken to heart in the pages that follow. Indeed, the textual data
adduced in this volume consists of nothing new; textual critics before me have
uncovered the manuscript evidence and variant readings that will be considered. What
is new here, however, is the set of questions that will be posed to this data for the
purpose of scrutiny and discovery. Driving all of them is this question: Are any of the
variant readings located in the canonical Gospels best explained as the product of
scribes acting intentionally to modify their exemplars under the influence of apologetic
interests? The constellation of variants that have been adduced here along with the
arguments I have contributed offer in response to this question a resounding yes.
Moreover, I seek to demonstrate that apologetic motivation was not an insignificant
influence on the New Testament text. Such a study, however, presses us beyond the
confines of the discipline of textual criticism, and requires us to explore also something
about the dynamics that existed between pagan critics and early Christian apologists.
57
Ehrman employs the term proto-orthodox in an effort to avoid any sense of historical
determinism, and, by it, simply means those ideological progenitors of the doctrinal stances that
had not yet but would subsequently come to occupy the dominant theological position of the
Church, and thereby achieve the claim to orthodoxy. For his more detailed discussion of the
issues related to nomenclature see idem, Orthodox Corruption, 1115 and 37, n. 43.
58
Peter Head, Christology and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the
Synoptic Gospels, NovT 35 (1993) 10529.
59
D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, 2.
60
D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, 7.
18
RELEVANT WRITINGS PERTAINING TO EARLY CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
Alongside these developments within textual criticism, important studies were also
appearing related to the field of the History of Early Christianity and, in particular,
Christian apologetics, particularly in Europe. In time, some of these proved to be
harbingers of an approaching convergence of disciplines. The year 1907 produced two
major studies in Germany that became immediate standards. Johannes Geffcken issued
Zwei griechischen Apologeten, which consisted of critical editions for the apologetic works
of Athenagoras and Aristides, the two Greek apologists of the title, but added to his
edition his own composite of the historical setting out of which these works were
issued.61 That same year the academic giant Walter Bauer released a probing study of
how the narrative of the life of Jesus evolved in the early church, particularly during
the period of the New Testament apocrypha.62
The year 1934 welcomed the completion by Pierre Champagne de Labriolle of a
magisterial work that represented the first thoroughgoing treatment of the pagan
intellectual response to nascent Christianity.63 Labriolles thorough investigation into
the sources demonstrated that the earliest decades of the Christian movement elicited
very little interest or responsein fact, virtually no mention at allfrom pagan
intellectual circles. The fastidious social observers of the day, Martial and Juvenal, he
noted, never even mentioned Christians. The second half of the second century,
however, began to see a change.
Here he described how pagan indifference to the Jesus movement soon begot
discomfort and sarcasm, and, in time, bred an all-out assault, both polemical and
political, against adherents of the new faith. Concerned pleas for conformity gave way
to harsh tirades of rational criticism and bitter accusation. By this time, the Christian
movement showed signs of vitality across the empire. Conservative intellectuals like
Celsus, who prized the Roman order, began to see the dangers inherent in the
movement. He recognized that the new faith had continued to spread despite public
ridicule and persecution, and came to believe that the only way to put an end to this
infectious malady was to expose its presumably sandy foundations to the storm of
informed assault. Although Labriolle concentrated his narrative on Celsus, Porphyry,
and Julian, he also managed to locate others to go along with the usual suspects.
Much more could be said about Labriolle, but the constraints of this study
demand summary. For our purposes, it is important to recognize that it was Labriolle
who first carved into the stem of historical inquiry the contextual contours onto which
one could graft the writings of pagan critics like Celsus and Porphyry. Also, with direct
bearing on this present work, Labriolle recognized that Celsus, and, to an even greater
61
Johannes Geffcken, Zwei griechischen Apologeten (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1907).
Walter Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apocryphen (Tbingen: Mohr
(Siebeck), 1907; Reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967).
63
Pierre de Labriolle, La Raction paenne: tude sur la polmique antichrtienne du Ier au VI e sicle
(Paris: LArtisan du Livre, 1934).
62
19
extent, Porphyry were well acquainted with New Testament writings, and he further
realized that apologetic respondents to such informed critics required, at times, a
defense of the scriptures.64 Labriolle, as we shall observe below in treating his
discussion of Origens response to pagan criticism related to the reported eclipse at
Jesus crucifixion, even wandered at points into text-critical grounds.65
Henry Chadwicks critically-acclaimed 1953 translation of Origens Contra Celsum
not only included an informative introduction and valuable footnotes, but it also
inspired the ground-breaking study by Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos.66 The fresh
contribution of Andresen was to juxtapose the works of Celsus and Justin, recognize
how their work was similarly informed by middle Platonism, and draw upon that
philosophical background to gain nuances into both of these important second century
writers. His investigation brought him to the conclusion that in large measure Celsus
had written /Alhqh_v Lo/gov as a direct response to the arguments forged by Justin.
Parts of this volume read like an exegesis of Celsus True Doctrine interpreted through
the lens of middle Platonism. Andresen summarized the arguments of Celsus under
four main points. As the first of these, consisting of Books I.28II.79, he recognized
Celsus contrary stance against the Christian contention that Jesus was a son of God;
he insisted that Jesus was only a man (nur ein Mensch). Second, recapitulating the
content of Books IIIIV, Andresen took note of Celsus charge that Christianity was,
in fact, the product of a split with Judaism and constituted a new religion, one that
lacked an adequate foundation ( ...das Christentum keine der Sache angemessene Grundlage
hat.). Here Celsus articulated his great disfavor with the practice of Christian
missionaries (Missionspraxis) in propagating features of an oriental doctrine that stood
in sharp relief to the teachings of the ancient and timeless truths (alte Logos) which
Celsus believed lay at the foundation of all human civilization. This led to the third
Hauptteil, featured in Books V.2VII.61, in which Celsus turned his attention to the
dogmathe Nomos of Andresens titleof the new religion. Christianity appeared to
Celsus as a perversion (Abart), Andresen stated, on the basis that although Christians
claimed to be monotheists, in practice, they worshiped two deities. It was in his
analysis of this section that Andresen summarized Celsus appraisal of the new religion
as a world without reason (Welt ohne Logos) and a world without dogma (Welt ohne
Nomos). Celsus argued that Christians behaved out of a misunderstanding of Greek
wisdom. Christians lacked Logos and Nomos because they had rejected the perennial
truths of the ancients. Finally, Books VII.62VIII.75 constituted the fourth and final
section of the work, in which Celsus confronted believers for rejecting their duty to
tradition (Bilderdienst) and the popular cult (Dmonenkult).67
64
P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, e.g., 128 and 25156.

P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 204220.
66
Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953). Carl Andresen,
Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1955).
67
C. Andresen, Logos und Nomos, 3943.
65
20
Andresen recognized that Celsus shared much in the way of world view with the
Christian apologist Justin. Both, he believed, embraced a common philosophical
underpinning, which he identified as middle Platonism. Both shared an understanding
of such concepts as Logos and Nomos. Andresen hypothesized that Celsus was not
so much attempting to construct a vindictive polemic against Christians, as he was
seeking to preserve the cherished values of his Hellenistic ancestors (das griechische
Vtergesetz).
More recently, two studies by Stephen Benko replowed the ground first tilled by
Labriolle, but with a distinctive focus on the first two Christian centuries.68 His 1980
article surveyed the primary sources of the pagan critics of Christianity from Pliny the
Younger to Celsus, thirteen in all, and gathered his findings into what he credibly
termed a kaleidoscopic view of how pagans looked at Christians in the first two
centuries.69 His useful summary merits reporting. Benko lists his insights under six
headings. First, he says that pagans understood Christianity to be a Jewish sect, an
appraisal that conveyed both blessings and curses. On the one hand, this identification
enabled Christians to enjoy some of the privileges afforded Jews by Roman authorities,
mainly on the basis of their antiquity as a religion. On the other hand, however,
Christians were viewed with the same suspicion directed toward Jews as a result of the
several insurgent revolts led by Jewish extremists such as Simeon Bar Kochba. Second,
Christians were labeled a superstition, and accused of engaging in magic and many of
the immoral and heinous behaviors associated with its practice. This attitude was
supported by apparent similarities that existed between features of Christian worship
and certain magical practices. Third, Christianity, on account of shared habit of
nocturnal meetings with the outlawed Bacchanalia, was deemed in some circles a
conspiracy. Fourth, Christian meetings resembled civic associations (e(tairei/a in
Greek, collegium in Latin), in particular, burial associations. After Trajan proclaimed
such associations against the law, Christian gatherings were, as Celsus noted, operating
illegally. Fifth, Christianity was likened to the mystery religions which were becoming
common during this period. Finally, some pagans, notably Galen, compared
Christianity to a philosophical movement, albeit an inferior one.70
Scholars have occasionally questioned whether or not scribes would have been at
all concerned about how sacred texts would have been perceived by pagans and other
outsiders. Data that constitute a tenable response to this question, however, were
previously adduced by Pierre de Labriolle.71 He noted that by the second century pagan
critics were combing the Christian scriptures for weaknesses they could exploit in their
68
Stephen Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries A.D.
ANRW II.23.2 (H. Temporani and W. Haase, eds.; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter,
1980), 10551118; and idem, Pagan Rome and Early Christians (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1984).
69
S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 1108.
70
71
Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 128 and 204 f.
21
assaults on the new movement. Celsus, for example, in his assault against Christianity,
founded many of his arguments upon evidence gleaned from his own perusal of
Christian sacred texts. However, these objections come from your own writings, says
Celsus Jewish alter-ego, and we need no other witnesses; for you provide your own
refutation.72 In addition, Origen contended that Celsus conveniently believed the
scriptures when it was to his advantage to do so, but dismissed them when he wished
to avoid the divine character of the books.73 Also, the criticisms drafted by Porphyry
demonstrated that he had read at least some of the Christian scriptures, most certainly
the Gospels. Moreover, B. H. Streeter recognized in the evolution of the Gospel
narratives from the canonicals to the second-century Gospel of Peter the shaping
influence of apologetic motivation.74 So did E. C. Colwell, who detailed the apologetic
reshaping of the Jesus narrative he believed to be inherent in the Fourth Gospel.75
The evidence is ample, therefore, that Christian scribes did have cause to be
concerned with how their sacred books were perceived by outsiders. The text of the
New Testament was in a potential sense an ammunition magazine, a common store
of gunpowder and musket balls critical to victory in the campaign being waged by both
pagan intellectuals and apologetic defenders. As such it was also a battleground. Pagans
sought to use Christian sacred writings to score rhetorical points against them, in much
the same way that Christian protagonists attempted to draft Plato or Homer in support
for their own cause. Therefore, as stated in the words of Bart Ehrman:
Christians of the second and third centuries were involved in a wide range of
theological disputes about the nature of God, the disposition of the material world,
the person of Christ, and the status of scripture. Scribes were not isolated from the
implications of these disputes. Theological polemics played a significant role in the
texts of the New Testament that were circulating, particularly among Christians
who represented views that were later to be championed by the victorious party, the
so-called orthodox believers who determined the shape of the creed and
established the contours of the canon. Especially in this early era, when the allegedly
apostolic writings were just beginning to be seen as authoritative, scribes who
reproduced them were not at all disinclined to modify what they had received so as
to make them more serviceable in their polemical milieu.76
I conclude this review with the work of another scholar whose views bring us
back by way of contrast to the views of F. J. A. Hort. Kim Haines-Eitzen in the year
2000 published the first thoroughgoing study of the scribes who copied the New
72
Cels. II.74, Chadwick, 122; see also I.12, II.77.

Cels. I.6364.
74
B. H. Streeter, Four Gospels, 360.
75
E. C. Colwell, John Defends the Gospel.
76
B. Ehrman, The Cup, The Bread..., 57691, esp. 591.
73
22
Testament and other Christian literature during the second and third centuries.77 Her
work located among Christian scribes a characteristic that distinguished them from
most other copyists of Greco-Roman antiquity. Where among most other scribes there
was a distinction between scribes and users, those who copied Christian texts also read
and studied them.
Although it was customary in the Graeco-Roman world to hire a scribe or enlist the
services of ones own slave-scribe to produce a copy of a literary text, a similar
distinction between producers and users does not appear in the context of early
Christian text transmission. What emerges from the historical record is precisely the
opposite: the producers of copies of early Christian literature, the scribes, were also
the users of this literature.78
This marriage of identity and function, she further noted, bred profound
consequences. Because the reproducers were also readers, they were not disinterested
copyiststhe human Xerox machines they are often portrayed to be; rather, they were
invested, sentient laborers who were sensitive to heretical discord and polemic disdain
swirling about them as they conscientiously (and consciously) went about their tasks.
Also, undoubtedly, they recognized the power at their disposal. Issues connected to
written texts were issues they could profoundly affect. Their ability to write meant they
could correct, clarify, buttress, or interpret a text, and, in so doing, impose with
enduring effect their own ideas onto their exemplars and, in turn, those controversies
that sought out authority or information in Christian sacred writings.79 Christian
scribes who read the text were by definition interpreters of the text. In turn, it was as
interpreters that they also engaged in the labor of reproducing texts, so that, at times,
they imposed their interpretation upon the text by editing and altering it. To be sure,
often enough to discern it, there was sometimes ideology in the ink. Haines-Eitzen
summarizes the point succinctly and well:
Scholars have become increasingly attuned to the ways in which variant readings
suggest the intersection of ideology and text reproduction. For example, studies have
shown that certain changes made by scribes in the process of copying appear to have
been motivated by anti-Jewish sentiments; others seem influenced by a certain
animosity toward women; others by apologetic concerns; and still others can be
explained by theological, especially Christological, concerns. Such studies have
seriously countered Horts famous statement: even among the numerous
77
Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardian of Letters.

K. Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters, 130.
79
Haines-Eitzen is aware that her arguments contradict traditionally held views that copyists
worked mechanically, as well as the widely-held supposition that written modes of
communication appear fixed while it is oral forms that are fluid and flexible. Yet, her arguments
are thoughtfully considered and, in my judgment, compelling. See idem, Guardians of Letters, 176,
n. 3.
78
23
unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of

deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes.80
Although Horts genius and legacy remain undiminished, Haines-Eitzen usefully

summarizes evidence that indicates that on this point he was in error. For dogmatic,
as well as other tendentious purposes, Christian scribes engaged in the act of
transmitting the text of the New Testament occasionally changed their exemplar in
order to produce a text that resonated with the tuning fork of the copyists own
ideology. Among those purposes was a concern to defend the faith, in the community
of which they were personally invested and for the purposes of which they copied
these sacred writings in the first place.
In summary, across time studies have reached greater clarity with regard to the
nature and impulse of intentional scribal manipulations of the text of the New
Testament. Where J. Rendel Harris began the last century speaking of locating the
fingerprints of such textual handlers, it does not seem an overstatement to ascribe to
studies current at the dawn of this new millenniumsuch as those of Eldon Epp,
Elizabeth Schssler Fiorenza, Bart Ehrman, and Kim Haines-Eitzencredit for
catching scribes in the act of altering the scriptures for tendentious purposes.
Thus, the New Testament we have today consists of a product that is something
between an academic mlange and an old family recipe. The published text represents
a selection of the finest raw ingredients available, which have been roasted in the oasts
of scholarly scrutiny and distilled by genealogical speculations and the evaluation of
reasoned eclecticism. In any given year, it is the best vintage our best-equipped
scholars can produce. Yet, at any given time that we raise in toast this filtered nectar,
it is incumbent upon us to remember that somewhere out there are those who with
devoted persistence are tampering with the recipe.
Such was true also in the earliest centuries of the Christian movement. Then, the
sacred text was forged in a crucible of Roman hegemony, Jewish apocalypticism,
internecine controversy, local persecution, individual zeal, corporate piety, and deathdefying conviction. Persons who were living in a volatile age and who were shaped by
its energies in turn defended and shaped the faith and its text. It is that intersection
between historical discourse and textual transmission that constitutes the content of
this study. So now we turn to examine and stencil the characteristic features of the
discourse that has survived between pagan critics and Christian defenders toward the
end of forming a matrix against which we can compare selected textual variants in the
canonical Gospels.
PAGAN OPPOSITION AND CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC RESPONSE
Because of the polemical character of the subject sources of this study, our search
for intersections is destined to be a collision course. In one direction, pagan critics
80
K. Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters, 112.
24
hurled pejorative lances at Christians, accusing them of immorality, atheism, impiety,

and treason; on the other, Christian apologists invoked every conceivable defense to
fortify their faith and shield the faithful against intellectual assault. We must not be
deceived that because it was a war of words it lacked weapons. The consequences of
this conversation were real. Pagan polemicists were concerned to safeguard their
revered and stable way of life against this upstart cult. Where they once viewed
Christians as a benign novelty, pagans by the second century looked upon them
nervously with suspicion, contempt, and even fear. What was at stake for the
apologists was the life of a fragile, fledgling religious movement. Christianity did not
yet have a foothold in the imperial court; it was not yet sustained by the benevolence
of Constantine and most of his successors. Its tenets and practices were still evolving,
and the movement remained vulnerable from within as well as from without. For both
sides, a way of life hung in the balance. So the sources make clear.
PAGAN OPPOSITION TO CHRISTIANITY
The dearth of sources we encounter on the pagan side is due in part to the
vitriolic zeal with which post-Constantinian Christians at the request of their bishops
or under orders from the emperor stoked their bonfires with anti-Christian writings.81
Ironically, much of the substantial pagan critique that survived the ravages of
Fahrenheit 451 did so in the guise of quotations located in the apologetic literature that
was intended to refute themso many wolves, as it were, cloaked in the garments of
sheep.
The ready availability of several excellent thoroughgoing surveys and studies that
serve well to introduce and provide analysis of the primary sources written by pagan
opponents of Christianity eliminates the need to recite that information here. What
follows here is intended simply to establish a context for the sources and authors we
will be examining in the chapters below.82
Pliny, Governor of Bithynia-Pontus. To date, no mention of Jesus of Nazareth has been
located in a pagan source written prior to the year 112 C.E. The first occurs in official
81
Efforts to destroy pagan polemical writings was highly successful. Porphyrys Against the
Christians, for example, was ordered burned along with the heretical writings of Nestorius by
Emperor Theodosius II in the year 448 C.E. No complete manuscript has survived to the
present. All we know of this work, as is also true of Celsus True Word, are those allusions and
quotations cited by Christian writers, usually with the mind to refute them. See W. H. C. Frend,
The Rise of Christianity (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1984), 442.
82
The work of P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne is not only a classic, but remains a rich and
comprehensive survey of these sources. More recently there is the work of S. Benko, Pagan
Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries A.D., ANRW II.23.2, 10551118; and
the more popular (but still very useful) treatment of the subject by Robert L. Wilken, Christians
as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1984). I rely heavily upon
these sources not only in this section but throughout this study.
25
correspondence that was issued between the seated governor of Bithynia-Pontus, Pliny
the Younger (c. 61113 C.E.), and his emperor, Trajan.83 From this famous
correspondence we learn much about how a provincial governor regarded and treated
Christians who resided within his jurisdiction.
It is his apparent uncertainty about what to do with Christians that prompts Pliny
to contact the emperor. His curiosity is invoked, in part, by the issue of whether or not
he should discriminate on the basis of age or penitence in issuing sentence; but the
larger question is whether there is something inherent in the very name Christian that
deserves capital punishment, or whether it is for crimes associated with the name that
sentence is warranted. He is content meanwhile to carry out judgment, based on his
own contention that stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy should be punished. The
governors interim procedure is as simple as it is ruthless: he asks them if they are in
fact Christians, and if they answer affirmativelyor deny it, but will not show due
reverence to the emperor or curse Christhe executes them. Pliny here shows Roman
justice to be both swift and coldly efficient. Still, something about this procedure
appears to have proved unsatisfactory to Pliny. In writing Rome, he also informs
Trajan of his orders to torture some Christian women in order to learn more of their
activities and intentions. What data he is able to obtain from this exercise leads him to
conclude that Christians constitute by and large a harmless lot, fairly innocuous in their
practice of a depraved and excessive superstition.84 Many of the elements we locate
in Pliny are echoed by later pagan polemicists, and are addressed by Christian
apologists. In fact, the issue of whether Christians should be judged on the basis of
their name alone or for specific crimes becomes an apologetic standard.
Two Pagan Historians: Tacitus and Suetonius. From two pagan historians roughly
contemporary with Pliny, we gain confirmation of this attitude against Christians held
by Romans. Tacitus (c. 55117 C.E.) viewed Christians as a disruptive social force. In
his Annals (15.44), where he described the torching of Rome under Nero, he reports
how the emperor was able to shift responsibility for the fire from himself onto the
Christiani, a group consisting of a vulgar mob...hated for their crimes. Tacitus goes
on to explain, however, that many of them were convicted not for setting the blaze but
because of their odium humani generis, hatred of the human race.85 Suetonius (c. 70160
C.E.), in his account of the reign of Nero (Nero 16.2), reports among other things,
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and
mischievous superstition. Both P. Labriolle and S. Benko rightly observe that what
83
See P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 2835; S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity,
106670.
84
Pliny, Ep. 96.10; Translation by S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 106869.
85
See P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 3641; S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity,
106263.
26
appears to disturb him most about Christians is the novelty of their superstition, and
how it stands opposed to the old and correct religion.86
Other Early Second-Century Sources. From Epictetus (c. 50130), a former slave and noted
Stoic philosopher, we catch only a glimpse of his perceptions regarding Christians (he
identified them as Galileans), but for the most part his appraisal was positive. Most
notably, he attributed their lack of fear before authorities to the sort of habit that
philosophers should seek to engender within others.87 Yet another famous Stoic, the
emperor Marcus Aurelius (121180 C.E.), was less generous in his appraisal of
Christians. He attributed their boldness in the face of death to stubbornness more than
courage or reasoned decisiveness.88
Only two ancient references speak of the second-century Roman Crescens.89
Justins Second Apology identified him as a Cynic philosopher whom the apologist
characterized as a lover of bravado and boasting famous for publicly attacking
Christians. Justin avowed that Crescens charges of impiety and atheism against
Christians resulted from his failure to study the teachings of Christ.90 Tatian in his
reference to him claimed that Crescens coveted money and indulged in pederasty.91
Beyond what can be read between the lines of these polemical appraisals of his intellect
and character, only one more thing can be said concerning the Cynic. Both Justin and
Tatian implied that Crescens posed a danger to them, so it may be possible that
Crescens played a role in the death of Justin Martyr (165 C.E.).92 Despite how little we
can confidently assert about Crescens, it is clear that he sowed hostility toward
Christians, presumably because they failed to show due reverence to the traditional
deities of Rome.
Satirists: Lucian of Samosata and Apuleius of Madaura. Among the numerous characters
satirized by Lucian (c. 115200 C.E.) was a certain Peregrinus (c. 100165 C.E.), who
Lucian tells us claimed for himself the moniker Proteus.93 In Death of Peregrinus,
the author portrays the title character as a great pretender, one who skips through life
86
S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 105662, esp. 1061.; P. Labriolle, La Raction
paenne, 44.
87
Epictetus, Discourses 4.7.16. See S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 107778.
88
Meditations XI.3. For the citation and discussion of the text, see S. Benko, Pagan
Criticism of Christianity, 1092; also George Long, trans., Marcus Aurelius: Meditations (Amherst,,
NY: Prometheus, 1991, 105106.
89
90
Justin, Ap. II.3, 11.
91
Tatian, Or. 19.
92
Along with the above references see the discussion in P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne,
635.
93
For a brief introduction to Lucian and translations in English of his writings, see Lionel
Casson, ed. and trans., Selected Satires of Lucian (New York/London: W. W. Norton, 1962. See
also the comments of S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 109397.
27
preying on the gullibility of others. Suspected of murdering his father, Peregrinus fled
to Palestine and where it was said that he converted to Christianity and very quickly
attained high rank in the church. He gained also quite a small fortune when, upon
being imprisoned for his beliefs, Christian visitors offered him gifts. In time, though,
his practice of eating meat offered to idols led to his estrangement from the church,
and he traveled on to Egypt and Italy, encountering Cynicism and achieved a
reputation as a philosopher. He became best remembered, however, for his spectacular
demise. At the Olympic games held in 165 C.E., Peregrinus after much fanfare leaped
headlong into a bonfire, thus terminating his career in a blazing suicide. So sensational
was this act that it was recalled frequently, even by Christian writers such as
Athenagoras and Tertullian.94 In this story, gullibility appears as the most defining
characteristic Lucian attaches to Christians. Here they are seen as persons all too ready
to fall for a charismatic charlatan, even one so transparent as Lucian depicts
Peregrinus. Yet, as can be seen in another of his tales, Lucian was not always consistent
in offering this evaluation of those associated with the Jesus movement.
Another brief reference to Christians occurs in Lucians expos of a religious
charlatan in Abonoteichus entitled Alexander the False Prophet. Commissioned by
an Epicurean gentleman, the work was addressed to a certain Celsus, a fact that has
given rise to speculation by some that this Celsus might have been the same person
who penned True Doctrine.95 This satirical narrative relates the tale of a schemer named
Alexander who designs an elaborate ruse to pass himself off as an oracle. Despite the
almost whimsical tone of the piece, some historical kernel underlies the story. Coins
minted by proud Abonoteichans can be found in museums today that bear the image
of their shrines serpentine deity.
Lucian portrays Alexander as the most brazen of scoundrels, declaring him to be
as great a villain as Alexander the Great was a hero. He explains that as a youth
Alexander parlayed his genuine good looks into a lucrative career as a prostitute, during
which time he engaged as a lover a certain quack magician who tutored him in the arts
of incantations and chicanery. When the bloom of his youth was spent, he partnered
with a fellow swindler in fleecing various people of means, one of whom was a woman
from Pella. There they became familiar with a breed of large but gentle serpent, fierce
in appearance but completely docile in manner. Sight of this reptile recalled for them
tales of Zeus taking the guise of a snake before impregnating Olympius with Alexander
the Great, and provided the impetus for their most sinister plotto grow prosperous
by establishing their own oracle, employing such a snake as a leading character in the
94
See Athenagoras, Leg. 26 and Tertullian, Mart. 4, both of which are cited in translation
in S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 1095, n. 153.
95
Origen equated the author of True Logos with this same friend of Lucian. James Francis
has fashioned a case for giving some degree of credence to this claim in idem, Subversive Virtue:
Asceticism and Authority in the Second-Century Pagan World (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University, 1995), 1335. C. Andresen, however, asserted that there was little to be gained in
establishing this connection (idem, Logos und Nomos, 5).
28
ruse. After selecting Abonoteichus as the perfect location for carrying out their plot,
Alexander and his partner managed to convince the citizenry there that the sudden
appearance of their pet snake represented a visitation from the god Asclepius. Once
the gullible masses fell prey to this deceit, the success of the next step in their plan was
guaranteed. Alexander wound the serpent around him in such a way to fashion the
look of a serpents body with a human face, and then invited people to write and seal
questions of import for which divine guidance or forewarning would prove beneficial.
Then, upon delivery, Alexander by various tricks was able to open the questions, offer
either easy or vague responses, and then return them sealed to an amazed audience.
Praising this godfreshly dubbed Glyconthe masses formed a ready clientele,
happily trading hard-earned coins for easily-dispensed oracles; and thereby Alexander
and his growing entourage realized a substantial fortune, and managed to solicit sexual
favors from young women and boys.
The episode of this narrative that possesses particular interest for our current
discussion, however, concerns that minority of citizens who began to unmask the
charlatan and his tricks. Lucian describes these men of senseas Epicureans, but
quickly adds that Alexanders campaign of intimidation against them was also directed
at atheists and Christians, as well.96 A bit later, Lucian writes, Alexander designed his
own mystery ritual that began with an initial proclamation, part of which declared, If
any atheist, Christian, or Epicurean has come here to spy, let him be gone....Christians,
begone!...Epicureans, begone!97 What is striking here is that Lucians treatment of
Christians in this story stands in sharp contrast to his portrayal of them in the tale of
Peregrinus. Where Christians proved gullible to the charms of Proteus in Death of
Peregrinus, in the tale of Alexander they are grouped in company with Lucians
esteemed Epicureans and generic atheists as those who, alone, demonstrated the good
sense not to fall victim to the machinations of this charlatan. Thus, it would appear
that Lucian did not consistently hold a poor opinion of Christians. Still, perhaps his
view should not be seen as entirely neutral. In describing the audience that Alexander
attracted in Abonoteichus, Lucian glibly reports that the crowd consisted of practically
the whole town, but then he adds, women, old men, children.... Where this
formulaold men, women, and childrenclearly serves Lucian here as a pejorative
characterization of the citizenry of Abonoteichus, it is almost the same formula he
used in Death of Peregrinus to characterize Christians. Gray-haired widows and
orphan children, he reports, hung around the prison, while bigwigs of the sect (old
men?) bribed jailers in order to spend the night with Proteus.98 If pressed, I am
inclined to venture the opinion that Lucian did not hold a high opinion of Christians;
he merely, it would seem, held an even lower opinion of Alexander.
Brief and passing as these references to Christians in Lucians writings are, they
do offer us some input for arriving at a composite of how pagans perceived Christians.
96
Lucian, Alexander the Quack Prophet, 25. See Lionel Casson, Selected Satires, 281.
Lucian, Alexander the Quack Prophet, 38. See Lionel Casson, Selected Satires, 2867.
98
Lucian, Death of Peregrinus, 1213. See Lionel Casson, Selected Satires, 3689.
97
29
Lucian clearly sees them as gullible enough to be conned by Proteus, but astute enough
not to fall prey to Alexander. He repeats the notion we find frequently among ancient
critics of Christianity that they are counted among the atheists. Also, even though he
details the activities of widows, old women and orphans when he describes Christians,
he acknowledges that there are, in fact, men possessing some status among their
ranks.99
The familiar story of a dabbler in magic, Lucius, who accidentally transforms
himself into an ass also includes a brief description that many scholars believe is a
reference to Christianity. Lucius Apuleius of Madaura (c. 123?), author of this tale
entitled Metamorphoses (more commonly referred to as The Golden Ass), described the
wife of a baker as a woman wicked to the core and possessing a heart that lacked no
vice. All of this prompted Lucius, at this point in the tale incarnate as an ass, to pity her
husband. With regard to this study, the key phrase in her characterization is, She
scorned and spurned the gods of heaven; and in the place of true religion she
professed some fantastic blasphemous creed of a God whom she named the One and
Only God.100 If the scholars who read this as a reference to Christianity are accurate,
Jack Lindsay is probably correct that an underlying anti-Christian polemic runs through
this book of Apuleius.101 S. Benko is a bit more reserved in his assessment that
Apuleius is speaking of Christians here, but he considers the possibility strong. He
reflects:
This description could fit a Jewish proselyte, i.e., a qeosebh/j (=god-fearer), but it
could also fit a Christian: the bakers wife worshiped one god, rejected polytheism,
enjoyed wine in the early morningwhich could be a reference to the early morning
Eucharist, and she was promiscuouswhich may reflect the popular charge about
the Christians immoral behavior as contained in the Octavius. Apuleius presented
the bakers wife as a wicked woman, quite in line with the uncritical contemptuous
view of Christianity of his day.102
Apart from their distinctive literary contributions to the second century, the
writings of these two satirists offer insights for historians of early Christianity, as well.
Because their remarks in these instances are supplementary rather than topical, they
99
Lucian, Death of Peregrinus, 1213; Once again see Lionel Casson, Selected Satires, 368,
where he identifies them as bigwigs of the sect, possibly indicating persons, probably male,
who were well to do.
100
Apuleius, Metam. 9.14. Here I am using the translation of Jack Lindsay, trans., Apuleius:
The Golden Ass (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1962), 193.
101
Lindsay points beyond this reference to the image of a Virgin triumphing on the ass in
Book VII and to the recollection that Christians were said to worship a man with the head of
an ass. Yet, he balances his treatment by stating that his greater concern is express a positive
devotion to Isis, as well as to offer social criticism of the issue of slavery in antiquity. See J.
Lindsay, Golden Ass, 2122.
102
30
probably convey a fairly accurate reflection of how these writers appraised Christianity,
and, more generally, of the opinions of some other pagan intellectuals toward the Jesus
movement. As such, these two articulate pagan voices portray early second-century
Christians as gullible and easily manipulated, obstinate, cruel, impious (with regard to
pagan deities), given to drink and perversity, and sexually profligate. Too, they
highlight the association of womenparticularly those who are aged, unsophisticated,
or promiscuousin the movement and present them as indicative of its membership.
Such descriptions applied to Christians will be met again and often in pagan discourse,
particular in the citation of one Marcus Fronto, a contemporary of Apuleius, recorded
in the Octavius of Minucius Felix.
Marcus Cornelius Fronto. The Roman intellectual Marcus Cornelius Fronto (c. 100166
C.E.) stood recognized as one of the great rhetoricians of his day and served as one of
the tutors of Marcus Aurelius.103 Recorded in the Octavius (89) of Minucius Felix there
appears a polemical discourse against Christians that is attributed to Fronto.104
Represented in these words is a nearly exhaustive summary of the standard but wideranging calumnies regularly directed against the beliefs and composition of Christianity
and the behavior of its adherents. Christians, according to him, consist of the dregs
of society, and theirs is a religion of fools, blasphemous conspirators, and gullible
women.105 They meet in nocturnal assemblies, participate in clandestine ceremonies
and cannibalistic feasts, and overturn the lights so that they can engage in acts of
unspeakable promiscuity and incest. In terms of veneration, they worship the head of
an ass, the genitals of their father, and an executed criminal and his cross. As a work
that informs us historically, the Octavius is particularly valuable for its comprehensive
collection of elements of the polemical pagan portrayal of Christians around the turn
of the third century. Below in subsequent chapters, I will attempt to demonstrate
103
For more on Fronto see P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 8794.

Attribution of this passage to Fronto, however, does not pass without dispute. For
instance, W. H. C. Frend questions the legitimacy of tracing the legacy of the speech directly
back to Fronto, although he expresses confidence that its content accurately represents
widespread Roman opinion toward Christians current in the middle of the second century. See
idem, Martyrdom and Persecution, 2523, 269. In part, the issue lies in the fact that no such oration
may be found in the extant works of Fronto. Still, S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity,
10812, is optimistic in his outlook that the arguments reported by Minucius Felix do, in fact,
find their basis in Fronto. The apologist himself gives credit for it to Caecilius illustrious friend
from Cirta. See Oct. 9.6. G. Clarke, trans. The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix (New York:
Newman, 1974). Labriolle points out an even more direct reference to Fronto in Oct. 31.12,
and offers plausible reasons for connecting the reference and oration to Fronto. See P.
Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 912.
105
For an insightful discussion of this passage from the Octavius with a focus on its negative
treatment and appraisal of early Christian women, see Margaret Y. MacDonald, Early Christian
Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 5967.
104
31
points in the scribal tradition at which apologetic concern with regard to these
elements prompted copyists to modify their texts. There I will cite this important
passage in full.
Celsus and Alhqh_
/
v Lo/gov. It is to Origen that we are indebted for preserving the
work of the conservative intellectual critic of Christianity, Celsus.106 Around the year
/
v Lo/gov, variously
172 C.E., Celsus authored a work he provocatively entitled, Alhqh_
translated as True Word, True Logos, True Discourse, True Account,or
True Doctrine.107 Based on our current knowledge, Celsus appears to have been the
first pagan writer who set out to compose a complete treatise against Christianity. So
far as can be determined from reconstructions based on Origens citations, True
Doctrine consisted of an attempt to call Christians back from their errors and
isolationist behaviors to participate once again in the ancient traditions and practices
that he reasoned to be true.
For Celsus, then, Christianity was based in error, and much of his book serves as
a rather extensive compendium of arguments against the religious movement.108
Christianity represented an inferior philosophical system (VI.1); its membership
consisted of people of low social class and limited intellectual abilities (I.62, II.46); and
believers worshiped a man Celsus variously depicted as an unsophisticated carpenter
(II.2), a wicked sorcerer (I.38, I.71, II.32, II.49, VIII.41), a liar (II.7), brigand (II.44),
vagabond (I.62, II.46), bastard (I.32), and a rightfully executed insurrectionist who
106
For a detailed introduction see P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, esp. 111169. The most
thorough analysis remains the classic work of Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des
Kelsos wider Das Christentum (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1955). The most exhaustive critical edition
is that of Marcel Borret, S.J., ed. Origne. Contre Celse (Sources Chrtiennes; Paris: Les ditions
du Cerf, 1967), while the most popular English translation and introduction belongs to Henry
Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953). A particularly
insightful study exploring the common conceptual base underlying the discussions of Jesus in
Celsus and Origen appears in Eugene Gallagher, Divine Man or Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus
(SBLDS 64; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982).
107
For example, H. Crouzel, Origen translates the title True Word; both Henry Chadwick,
Origen: Contra Celsum, and R. J. Hoffmann, Celsus: On the True Doctrine, favor True Doctrine;
True Account is the choice of R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists, and M. Frede, Origens Treatise
Against Celsus; while the editors of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, F. Crombie and W. H.
Cairns, prefer to render the title True Discourse. J. Trigg, Origen, appears to embrace the
ambiguity by reading simply True Logos. Since, except for Triggs borrowed ambiguity, no
single one of these renderings conveys fully the complete essence of the Greek Logos, and the
sole use of any one of these translations would imply it seems to me an interpretation that limits
the levels of meaning that I believe Celsus intended his title to convey, I have chosen in the
course of this book to vary my translation so that the reader is constantly reminded of the
various nuances implied by the title.
108
M. Frede, Origens Treatise Against Celsus, in M. Edwards, M. Goodman, and S.
Price, eds. Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999), 13155.
32
showed in the face of death fear, powerlessness, and groaning despair (I.54, II.45,
II.24). Also, to add insult to injury, Celsus claimed that Jesus was ugly (VI.75). In
addition, Celsus showed familiarity with and disdain for the Christian scriptures. He
found the depiction of God there to be offensively anthropomorphic (VI.6163).
Celsus found the doctrines of the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus untenable and
offensive. He repeated the widely circulating rumor that Jesus was in fact not born of
a virgin but was rather the illegitimate product of the union between a Roman soldier
and his prostitute mother (I.32). The notion of a god becoming flesh, dying, and
returning to a corporeal existence could only be described as blasphemy (VII.14).109
Harsh as his rhetoric could sound, the essence of his work was an appeal for
Christians to repent of their errors and to re-enter the fold of traditional piety. At the
heart of his argument lay the basic belief that there existed from the foundation of the
world a perennial truth (this is what he meant by true word) that was the common
heritage of all humankind. The choice of Christians to estrange themselves from public
festivals and rites that commemorated that eternal truth was proof that they had
wandered astray.
Scholars continue to debate the long-term impact of True Word. Clearly something
of consequence prompted his patron Ambrose to commission Origen to devote such
immense energies and resources to responding point by point to Celsus. Yet, Origen
in his preface to Contra Celsum indicates that he had never read or heard of the book
prior to receiving a copy of it from Ambrose. Clarity on the matter continues to evade
scholarship.
Porphyry of Tyre. Widely considered by ancients as well as current scholars one of the
most formidable of the pagan critics of Christianity, it is regrettable that the works of
Porphyry (c. 232305) have been for the most part lost.110 Surviving the first
condemnation under Constantine, his works were once more ordered burned by
Theodosius and Valentinian in 448 C.E.111 This systematic torching of his writings
109
The references in the preceding paragraph have been to Contra Celsum. Cf. S. Benko,
Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 110108 for his introductory comments on Celsus, many of
which have been followed closely here.
110
Eusebius (Hist. eccl. VI.19.2), e.g., identified Porphyry as a contemporary of his who
settled in Sicily and wrote treatises (suggra&mmata) attempting to slander Christians and their
sacred scriptures (ta_v qei/av grafa_v diaba&llein). Robert L. Wilken referred to Porphyry
as the most learned critic of all (Idem, Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 126 f.).
111
What remains of his work consists of fragments located in various Christian writers, in
particular Augustine and Jerome. The standard collection of the fragments remains that of
Adolf von Harnack, Porphyrius Gegen die Christen, 15 Bcher: Zeugnisse, Fragmente, und
Referate, Abhand. kn. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Kl. (Berlin, 1916), although more recent
scholars have seriously challenged the attribution of those fragments derived from Macarius
Magnes to Porphyry himself. The current consensus among scholars is to eliminate them from
consideration as authentic, but R. Joseph Hoffmann champions the minority position in his
translation of the fragments of Macarius in idem, Porphyrys Against the Christians: The Literary
33
directed by emperors and church leaders suggests that something about Porphyry and
his prose posed a particularly serious threat to early Christians. Moreover, the work
continued to command significant attention from many of the important Christian
writers of the late third, fourth and fifth centuries, including Eusebius, Methodius,
Apollonaris, Jerome, and Augustine. Even more imposing, it would seem, than the
volume of his Against the Christiansit totaled 15 volumeswas his comprehensive
knowledge of Christianity and its sacred writings. In the words of B. Croke, The
superiority of Porphyrys case stemmed from the singular advantage that he argued not
so much as a convinced Hellenist but from an intimate knowledge of Christian
scriptures, dogma, and customs.112 Scholars dispute the precise date of Against the
Christians, but its publication almost certainly fell between 270 C.E. and the first decade
or so of the fourth century.113
A. Harnack divided his collected fragments of Porphyrys writings into five
divisions that serve to articulate for us a fairly accurate picture of the general character
of Porphyrys criticism of Christianity.114 The five divisions are as follows: (1) criticism
of the reliability of the apostles and evangelists; (2) a critique of the Old Testament,
including most especially his groundbreaking treatment of the book of Daniel; (3) a
discussion of the words and deeds of Jesus;115 (4) a criticism of the dogma of
Christianity (preserved in the writings of Augustine); and (5) a discussion of the
present shortcomings of the church.116 Porphyry supported his arguments with detailed
discussions with the biblical stories, e.g., attributing Pauls ability to work miracles to
magic (and of a sort inferior to that wrought by Apollonius of Tyana), scandalizing the
tension between Peter and Paul as evidence of Peters errors and the existence of
disharmony within the church, deriding the habit of allegorical exegesis found in such
noted Christian biblical interpreters as Origen, and advancing his own chronological
Remains (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1994). For additional introduction to Porphyry and more
information expressed from the perspective of the mainstream consensus see P. Labriolle, La
Raction paenne, 22396; T. D. Barnes, Porphyry Against the Christians, 42442; A. Meredith,
Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians, ANRW II.23.2, 11191149; and Brian Croke,
The Era of Porphyrys Anti-Christian Polemic, JRH, 114.
112
B. Croke, Era of Porphyrys Anti-Christian Polemic, 1.
113
Contours of the dispute may be seen in T. D. Barnes, Porphyrys Against the Christian:
Date and Attribution, 42442 and B. Croke, The Era of Porphyrys Anti-Christian Polemic,
114. Barnes argues for a later date early in the third century, and is even willing to press back
the date of Porphyrys death to invite consideration of a date near 313 C.E. Crokes article
challenges each point on which Barnes has made his case, and offers compelling reasons for
returning to a date around 270/3 C.E. for Porphyrys authorship of Against the Christians during
the years he spent in Sicily.
114
A. Harnack, Porphyrius Gegen die Christen.
115
Much of this material, however, is derived exclusively from the Apocriticus of Macarius
Magnes, the analysis of which has fomented doubt among many scholars as to whether these
remarks should rightly be attributed to Porphyry himself. See note 112 above.
116
A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians, 1128.
34
analysis to pinpoint the relative novelty of Judaism and Christianity to Phoenician

religion. Anthony Meredith further depicts how Porphyrys enduring demonstration
of Daniel to be a historical, pseudepigraphical work struck a blow against the
perception of the book to be prophetic in character, and thus weakened its value as
an apologetic weapon in the hand of the Christian apologists.117 Meredith, building
on H. O. Schroeder, emphasizes also that the chief difference between Celsus and
Porphyry in their criticisms of Christianity involved the foundations and
methodologies of their arguments:
Whereas Celsus, as H. O. Schroeder points out, bases his arguments on the learning
and philosophical position of antiquity, Porphyry confronts the Christians with their
own primary weapon, the Bible. By means of historical analysis and criticism, and
with the help of a somewhat pedantic and literalistic approach, he tries to expose the
inaccuracies, the inconsistencies and general relative character of the sacred books.
He is frequently pedantic rather than profound, looking to trivial errors as a means
for upsetting the trustworthiness of the gospel and its authors.118
However compelling or unsatisfying such trivial pursuits may prove rhetorically,

Porphyrys practice of combing the text in order to confront its inconsistencies will
prove particularly useful for locating data relevant to this study. In instances involving
several of the very texts that Porphyry himself adduced in order to challenge the
consistency and reliability of Christian scripture, we will discover scribal activity that
served to eliminate the very points of contention this polemicist had raised.119
Pagan Opposition in Summary: One Side of the Discourse. The character and contours of the
pagan criticism of Christianity was by no means monolithic. In terms of vigor and
attitude, as well as rhetorical strategy and arenas of argumentation, opposition to
Christianity frequently adapted its harangue, showing signs of changing with the times,
modifying the scope and focus of its arguments, and deepening the intensity of the
dispute as the Christian following grew in numbers and gained a disturbing
momentum. Early on, members of the Roman establishment moved beyond disregard
to disdain for members of the movement. In Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Marcus
Aurelius one witnesses a contempt for the perceived arrogance, obstinacy, and atheism
of Christians, and for their movement constituting a novel superstition. Some
intellectuals, such as Galen and Epictetus, could appreciate certain behaviors of
Christians and identify them with some regard as a philosophy, but they rated them
inferior to the more traditional branches of reason. By the time Celsus took pen in
hand, his concern was with an expanding movement he viewed as a legitimate threat
to the established practices of piety and traditional religions that had made Rome great.
He challenged the movement, in part, by deriding its founder, Jesus; and also
117

119
See below the discussions of Mark 1:2, Matthew 13:35, and John 7:810.
118
35
questioned the antiquity of the faith and the acumen of its adherents. Porphyry
similarly attacked the disciples of the movement, and more than any other polemicist
assailed the trustworthiness of their sacred writings. The oration attributed to Marcus
Fronto located in the Octavius delineated with rhetorical force most of the popular
portrayals of Christians as persons of immoral character and disgusting religious
practices. In one way or another, almost all of the pagan critics judged Christians a
threat to the stability of society, if not to the primacy of Rome.
In general terms, then, the shape of the pagan assault on Christians, like carved
crystal, bore many facets. For one, erudite critics fashioned a two-pronged attack
rooted in the charge that both believers and the scriptures they read and trusted lacked
intellectual integrity. Another of their assaults was directed at Jesus himself. Variously
he was portrayed as a person of inglorious birth, common peasant upbringing, and one
who possessed either poor judgment or deliberate mischief with regard to the character
of the companions with whom he chose to surround himself. Where he worked
miracles, they saw him to be a sorcerer. Where he was portrayed in the vernacular of
a theios aner, he was deemed inferior to others of his ilk, such as Apollonius of Tyana.
Constituting a third facet of this literary barrage, followers of Jesus were ridiculed as
ignorant, gullible fools, and for consisting mainly of women and fanatics. They were
said to be people who engaged in disgusting rituals, such as Thyestean feasts
(cannibalism) and Oedipal orgies (incest). Finally, coming from still another direction,
pagan antagonists broadcast the indictment that Christianity represented a threat to
Rome.
These were the fingers of accusation that pagans pointed in the faces of
Christians. Some Christians, however, rose to these challenges and crafted responses
intended to defend the faith and the faithful from these pejorative assaults. To these
apologetic writers we now direct our attention.
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC RESPONSE
With regard to this study on the Christian side, we are interested mainly in the
Greek apologists of the second and third centuries. These writers addressed and
formulated their discourse in light of the dominant culture of the day. Although these
writings were ostensibly addressed to outsidersfrequently the emperors
themselvesmany scholars today remain convinced that apologetic literature would
have been read almost exclusively by those who were already part of the Christian
community.
The Earliest Christian Apologists: Quadratus and Aristides. Quadratus, the earliest known of
these defenders of the faith, is barely known to us at all. Eusebius alone preserves a
single fragment of his otherwise lost work, a copy of which the historian claims to
have owned and which he indicates was addressed to Hadrian (117138 C.E.) shortly
36
after the death of Trajan.120 Johannes Quasten suggests that the work was composed
sometime between 123129 C.E. and may have issued from Asia Minor.121 The citation
reads:
tou= de\ swth=rov h(mw= n ta_ e r! ga a)ei\ parh=n a)lhqh= ga_r h]n, oi9
qerapeuqe/ntev, oi9 a)nasta&ntev e0k nekrw= n, oi$ ou)k w!fqhsan mo/non
qerapeuo/menoi kai_ a)nista&menoi, a)lla_ kai_ a0ei\ paro/ntev, ou)de_
e)pidhmou=ntov mo/non tou= swth=rov, a)lla_ kai_ a)pallage/ntov h]0san e0pi_
xro/non i9kano/n, w3 ste kai_ ei0v tou_v h9mete/rouv xro/nouv tine_v au)tw= n
a)fi/konto.
But the works of our Savior were always present, for they were true. Thus, those
persons who were made well and raised from the dead were seen, not only at the time
when they were healed and were raised, but also as they continued to be present. Nor
did they continue only while our Savior remained among us, but even after he had
departed they lived a considerable time, even to the point that into our own times
some of them have survived.122
Brief as this fragment is, several features appear here that will emerge as standard
themes among apologetic writers. One is the emphasis on healing and resurrection,
features which proved central to the Christian message but also provided fodder for
the pagan disputants of the movement. Second is a concern for truth, presumably in
juxtaposition with falsehood. Throughout the discourse between pagans and
apologists, each side would claim truth for itself and lay deceit or error at the doorstep
of its opponent. Finally, Quadratus declares that the effect of Jesus miracles was an
enduring one. According to him, in fact, there were still persons alive when Quadratus
penned his defense of the faith who could testify to Jesus having healed them.123 We
can detect in this proclamation a testimony for both the legitimacy of Jesus miracles
(which in later writings is contrasted with charlatans who only pretend to cure) and
their positive character (posed in later literature in sharp relief to the ill effects of
sorcery and magic).
120
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.3.1. For text and translation see Kirsopp Lake, Eusebius: The
Ecclesiastical History I (LCL; 2 vol.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), 3067.
121
J. Quasten, Patrology I, 19091. For more on Quadratus see J. R. Harris, The Apology
of Quadratus, ExpTim 8/21 (1921), 14760. Quasten asserts that Harriss hypothesis that other
fragments of Quadratus apology may be interspersed among the Pseudo-Clementines, Barlaam
and Joasaph, the Acts of Saint Catherine of Sinai and the Chronicle of John Malalas has been
proven false, but he does not elaborate.
122
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.3.12. The Greek text is located in K. Lake, Eusebius: The
Ecclesiastical History, LCL I, 308. The translation into English is my own.
123
Eusebius accepted this as gospel and, along with his statement that Quadratus addressed
his apology to Hadrian (117138 C.E.), provided him the necessary evidence to ascribe to him
an early date (a)rxaio/thta). See K. Lake, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, LCL I, 3067.
37
In the case of another apology addressed to Hadrian we are more fortunate. The
work of Aristides of Athens has survived in an Armenian fragment, a complete Syriac
version, and, in Greek, as part of the Greek romance, Barlaam and Joasaph.124 In terms
of content, Aristides introduces his apology with the thesis that the human population
of the world falls neatly into four distinct categories: Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and
Christians. He then proceeds to fashion his argument by showing how, of those four
groups, only Christians have seized upon the true idea of God. Barbarians worship the
four elements, which are part of Gods creation and not God himself. Attributed to
the deities the Greeks worship are weaknesses and character flaws that unmask their
inferiority and lack of divine status. Jews, who merit respect for their laudable moral
standards and sense of Gods nature, err in their reverence for angels and obsession
with cultic practices, such as dietary restrictions and circumcision. Christians alone,
claims Aristides, have located the truth in the revealed Trinitarian God. Theirs is an
exclusive worship that leads to a pure life. Aristides goes on to describe Christians as
persons who hope in the resurrection and who pursue a life of gentle, humble
service.125 He concludes with the declaration, I do not hesitate to say that the world
continues to exist only because of the prayers of supplication of the Christians.126
This will surface in other early Christian writers as a sort of mantra in defense of the
loyalty of Christians for the Roman state.
Justin Martyr. Widely regarded as the most important of the second-century Greek
apologists, Justin (c. 100165 C.E.) was born to pagan parents in Samarian Palestine,
in the town of Flavia Neapolis, formerly known as Shechem.127 The autobiographical
account of his conversion reported in Dialogue with Trypho (somewhat suspect
historically, it should be noted, since the conversion story was composed in a stylized
form bearing conventions popular with many second-century writers) indicates that he
spent his youth sampling the smorgasbord of philosophical schools (Stoics,
Peripatetics, Pythagoreans, Platonists), none of which ultimately proved satisfying to
him.128 Along the way he was exposed to Christians and the charges of immorality
124
Two major studies including critical editions of the Apology of Aristides are J. Rendel
Harris, The Apology of Aristides (TS I; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893); and
Johannes Geffcken, Zwei griechischen Apologeten (Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms Verlag,
1970 [Originally published 1907]).
125
Ap. Aris. 15.
126
Ap. Aris. 16.
127
For affirmation of this claim see Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists, 50; J. Quasten,
Patrology I, 196; L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1967), 1; Henry Chadwick, Justin Martyrs Defence of Christianity, BJRL
47 (1965), 275297. For a representative of those whose appraisal of Justin is less flattering,
however, see J. Geffcken, Zwei griechischen Apologeten, 97104.
128
R. M. Grant notes that Justin in crafting the narrative of his conversion was probably
influenced by his admiration for the stylized rhetoric of Plato. Lucian and Galen number along
other second-century authors who describe their search for truth as a journey from one
38
directed against them, but their courage in the face of deathin contrast with the
reaction to the same by Marcus Aureliusimpressed him favorably.129 What finally led
to his conversion to Christianity, he says though, was a timely encounter with an old
man, who convinced him to turn to the Hebrew prophets. When he did, Justin says,
...a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who
are friends of Christ, possessed me...I found this philosophy alone to be safe and
profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I became a philosopher, and I could wish that
all men were of the same mind as myself, not to turn from the doctrines of the
Savior.130
Among those whose labors bear his imprint were Tatian and Irenaeus.131 With regard
to his importance, H. Chadwick asserts, No second-century source is more
informative about the way in which the first encounters between the Church and
educated society looked to a thoughtful Christian.132
That Justin after his conversion continued to clothe himself in the pallium, the
symbolic cloak of a philosopher, is highly appropriate in view of his apologetic style
and strategy. Among Christians, he was the first serious writer to attempt to link the
proclaimed elements of the fledgling faith with the well-entrenched and highly
respected tenets of Greco-Roman philosophy. Indeed, much of what we label
Christian apologetic writing was modeled after Socrates own defense at his trial, an
apologia in which he attempted to demonstrate the rationality of his position. The First
Apology employed stylized features from Platos works, and Justins Second Apology
invoked the name of Socrates several times, including a comparison of him with Jesus
to the advantage of Christ (Ap. II.10). Justin himself called his work a prosfw/nhsiv,
an address, a term borrowed from Hellenistic rhetoric and defined by Menander as
a speech of praise to rulers spoken by an individual.133
He addressed his First Apology to the reigning emperor, identified as Antonius
Pius, and his philosopher son Verissimus, presumably Marcus Aurelius.134 Two
philosophy to another. See R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists, 5051. In his Second Apology, Justin
makes clear that the courage Christians exhibited in the face of death had a transforming effect
on him (Ap. II.12.1).
129
Ap. II.12.1.
130
Dial. 8. The translation is that of J. Quasten, Patrology I, 196.
131
R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists, identifies Justin as Irenaeus favorite apologist(61)
because of his bold incarnational Logos Christology, and he refers frequently to the commonly
known fact that Justin was the teacher of Tatian (e.g., 124).
132
H. Chadwick, Justin Martyrs Defence of Christianity, 275.
133
Justin, Ap. I.1. For more on Menander see R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists, 54.
134
The actual address reads To the Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius
Caesar Augustus, and the son Verissimus, philosopher, and Lucius, philosopher, by birth son
of [L. Aelius] Caesar and by adoption son of Pius and a lover of culture.... The Senate and
people of Rome are also named. See the discussion in R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists, 52.
39
themes dominated this treatise. First, Justin called for justice. He sought to belie the
slanderous charges of atheism, immorality, and disloyalty directed against Christians.
He invited scrutiny of behavior and welcomed judgment for any crime of which a
Christian might be found guilty; but he criticized the practice of condemning
Christians on the basis of the name alone. This rhetorical strategy became
commonplace among apologists, particularly in the writings of Athenagoras and
Theophilus.135 Second, Justin labored to demonstrate the rational basis and actual truth
of Christianity. The main pillars of his argument involved identifying Jesus as the logos,
demonstrating the superior antiquity of Christianity, emphasizing the monotheistic
nature of the faith (a belief shared by Platonists), and invoking the authority of
prophecy. Again, many of these themes would be reprised in later apologists.136
The briefer Second Apology appears to have been prompted by a series of
condemnations enforced by the prefect of Rome, Urbicus.137 Addressing this work to
the Roman Senate, Justin attempted to call attention to the injustice represented in the
execution of these three Christians and to challenge those who accuse Christians of
being atheists and impious without reading their teachings or understanding their
beliefs. Justin attached blame for such injustice to a brand of hatred born of demons.
It was under the influence of evil demons, he explained, that earnest persons such as
Socrates became imprisoned and persecuted (Ap. II.7).
Dialogue with Trypho differs to some extent from the two apologies, in that it is
framed as a response to a Jewish critic and it relies heavily upon the Hebrew scriptures
for authoritative support for its contentions. J. Quasten explains that this is due to its
being addressed to an entirely different type of reader, but I believe we need to be
wary of such a declaration.138 Justin may well be fighting on a different front, but that
does not mean he is writing to a different audience. This would make it seem odd,
though, as R. M. Grant notes, that he would place the story of his own
conversionclearly a model for pagan readers to follownot in either of his
apologies but in his Dialogue with Trypho.139 It is not so odd, however, if one recognizes
apologetic literature to be predominantly in-house reading. The church of Justins day
135
Athenagoras, Leg.13; Theophilus, Autol. I.1, 12.

See as a small sampling, e.g., the theme of superior antiquity in Tatian (Or. 31) and
Theophilus (Autol. III.1729); Logos theology in Athenagoras (Leg. IV.2) and Theophilus (Autol.
I.7); authority of prophecy in Theophilus (Autol. I.14); emphasis on monotheism in Athenagoras
(Leg. 4).
137
Based on some confusion between Eusebius list of Justins works in comparison with
the historians description of them, some scholars find reason to wonder if the so-called Second
Apology may in fact be part of the so-called First Apology. Grant considers that, if they are parts
of a single work rather than two separate pieces, it would be more accurate to identify the work
a biblidion, petition, rather than an apology. See, R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists, 5455, and, for
a fuller discussion of this issue, P. Keresztes, The So-Called Second Apology of Justin,
Latomus 24 (1965), 85869.
138
J. Quasten, Patrology I, 203.
139
R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists, 51.
136
40
included converted Jews and converted pagans. Also, many of those Jewish converts
were Hellenized, highly attuned to the culture and ideas of Greek art, literature, and
philosophy.140 Moreover, it should not be assumed that pagans, particularly converts,
would have been unacquainted with the Hebrew Bible. We know of pagans that were
sympathizers with Jews (God-fearers), and those pagan converts who associated with
the movement would undoubtedly have participated in worship wherein the Jewish
scriptures were read. Readers of apologetic literature, therefore, must beware confusing
the designated addressee of the apology with the genuine intended audience. In my
judgment, we are more likely to ascertain the motives and strategies of the apologists
if we read the bulk of their writings as open correspondence with their communities
of faith and not as confidential treatises directed to pagan aristocrats. That does not
mean, however, that apologists paid no attention to pagan rhetoric in constructing
their works; nor does it imply that pagans never read Christian apologetic writings. It
is almost certain they did.141 Yet, Justin was defending the faith on behalf of the faith
of the faithful. His arguments, like those of most apologists of any ilk, seldom sound
as if they would have proved compelling beyond the confines of his like-minded
camp.142 Within that camp, however, they providedor were intended to providea
more secure rational foundation for what those with like minds believed and trusted,
but had not yet completely thought through or figured out. Justin and his
successors were, most of all, strengthening the belief of believers, not convincing the
antagonistic. They were offering those of like mind but fragile faith some matrix of
rationality on which to pin their piety. They sought to give those whose thoughts were
being swayed some reasons to stay. They were providing those who doubted some
semblance of an answer to their questions.
140
See R. M. Price, Hellenization and Logos Doctrine in Justin Martyr, VC 42 (1988),

1823. In this brief article Price warns against overstating the division that existed in Justins day
between Judaism and Hellenism. He cautions, We should certainly acknowledge that by the
time Justin came on the scene a hellenizing process had so long been proceeding within Judaism
itself that Judaism no longer presented a sharply contrasting culture(19). Although Price may
have overstated his caseJudaism as a scripture-based, exclusive monotheistic religion did
stand in pointed contrast to the eclectic and inclusive polytheistic religions of Greco-Roman
antiquityhis caveat nevertheless bears notice.
141
C. Andresen, for example, has argued ably that Celsus penned his True Doctrine in
response to Justins apologetic writings. See Idem, Logos und Nomos, e.g. 3567. For Andresen,
Justin is the only Christian apologist from whom the issues Celsus addresses could have been
taken. In his mind, there is no way to understand Celsus without Justin. Kelsos ohne Justin
(ist) unverstndlich (357).
142
Grant points out that Justin spends nearly half of his apology adducing Old Testament
predictions that anticipate Christ. It is hard to imagine, he says, a Roman emperor, or even
a secretary dealing with petitions, finding this kind of material convincing or impressive. Grant
goes on to assert his opinion that such collections of proof texts were gathered for use within
the Christian community where it was especially suited for controversies with Jews. R. M. Grant,
Greek Apologists, 62.
41
In comparison with the two apologies, however, the Dialogue with Trypho embarked
on a different tack against the tempestuous forces that threatened to swamp the
ecclesiastical ship. Rather than drafting the authority of Socrates and Platonic
philosophy, it charted a new course with the prophetic writings of the Old Testament
and their purported anticipation of the incarnation of the divine Logos, Christ, serving
as magnetic north. Yet, Justin did not so much denigrate Greco-Roman philosophy as
he detailed how his faith superceded it. It was toward this end that he related his
autobiography, describing how his journey in search of truth took him through various
and many philosophies before he finally located it in Christianity. Still, the central
thesis of Dialogue with Trypho, particularly of chapters 32110, was that Jesus Christ
constituted the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.
As an apologetic strategy, the importance of this theme cannot be overstated. Not
only does this line of discourse permeate the Dialogue, but it also finds residence in a
number of other apologists. Much of the insult heaped upon Jesusparticularly that
related to his recent appearance, scandalous birth, and heinous executionwas
defended in terms of Old Testament prophecy. So, too, the dismissive feature of
Christianity as a novel religious movement was rebuffed by claiming a level of
antiquity that went beyond that of the Romans, Greeks, or even Jews. The Old
Testament figure Moses, some apologists would articulate, was older than Plato, older
than Socrates, older even than Hesiod and Homer and the heroes of their writings.
And Jesus, as the incarnate Logos, was older than Moses. All these arguments grew out
of a strategy that was rooted in the Gospel tradition, but was first fashioned in terms
of apologetic rhetoric in the works of Justin.143 His Logos corresponded in large
measure to that of Middle Platonism, the personal reason of God in which all nations
could potentially partake. In this, he and Celsus could have and would have found
common ground. Where they came to the proverbial fork in the road was with Justins
assertion that the whole Logos resided in Christ alone. Where for Celsus the Alhqh_
/
v
Lo/gov (True Word) consisted of a perennial wisdom accessible to all people, for
Justin the fullness of the Logos was bound up exclusively in the proclamation of Jesus
as the personified wisdom of God.144 On this point, he and Philo might have agreed.145
143
Perhaps the most lucid discussion of this topic as it developed in apologetic discourse
is located in Arthur J. Droge, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture
(Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989). His discussion of Justin, in particular, on this
topic of antiquity and the Christian supersession of Judaism may be found on pages 4981. Carl
Andresen also offers insight into this theme in his work on the relationship between Celsus and
Justin. See idem, Logos und Nomos, 308 f.
144
Compare, e.g., Justins Logos as timeless divine principle (334) with that of Celsus
concept of the true word (Wahrer Logos) being equivalent to an ancient word (alter
Logos)(112) in C. Andresen, Logos und Nomos, 334.
145
Some have argued that Justin borrowed his doctrine of Logos as Sophia from Philo, but
Grant takes the position that his doctrine of the Logos was based on a doctrine of Sophia
developed within Hellenistic Judaism but not taken directly from Philo of Alexandria. Grant
underscores the difference by pointing out the varying familial relationship. For Philo, God is
42
For Justin, though, Jesus was e3terov a0riqmw|=, distinct in number from God,
different in the sense that light is different from the sun. Already for Justin we see
features of evolving Christologynot yet orthodoxy but no longer lacking nuance.
Jesus the Logos was both one with and distinct from God the Father. Features of his
Logos theology would continue to inspire and evolve in the writings of other Christian
apologists, Athenagoras and Theophilus, to name but two.146
Before leaving Justin, a word is in order about his knowledge and use of the New
Testament writings.147 It is well known that Justin frequently referred to ta_
a0pomnhmoneu/mata tw= n a0posto/lwn, the memoirs of the apostles.148 L. W.
Barnard argues that Justins use of the term is descriptive and intentional. Since the
term Gospel was already well established by Justins day, he appears to be doing
something deliberate in using this different word. While some have argued that he was
merely borrowing a phrase once used by Papias, Barnard questions this on the basis
that Justin nowhere else cites Papias and that their respective approaches to the faith
differ. Instead, he contends that Justin was building on the popularity of a work on
eu/mata Swkra/touv, Memoirs of Socrates. In
Socrates by Xenophon, Apomnhmon
/
consciously employing this phrase, Justin was attempting to offer readers unfamiliar
with the Gospels but acquainted with Xenophon an indication of the sort of writing
these books contained. Justin indicates that these books were read in worship and
served as the basis of Christian preaching.149
Scholars continue to debate the content of these memoirs, whether Justin knew
some or all of the canonical Gospels, and/or some of the non-canonical Gospels. L.
W. Barnard reports that Justins allusions or citations correspond to parts of every
chapter of Matthews Gospel, and to all but seven chapters of Lukes Gospel.150
Although no direct quotations from the Gospel of John appear in Justins writings,
certain passages, states Barnard, are most naturally explained as reminiscences of
Father of the created universe, while Sophia is its mother and nurse; whereas, in Justin, Jesus
is Son and Logos. R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists, 61.
146
Athenagoras, Leg. IV.2; Theophilus, Autol. I.7. W. R. Schoedel has even crafted the
argument that Justin may have had some degree of influence on Athenagoras in the latters
development of early Trinitarian ideas. Schoedels contention is that the doctrine of the Trinity,
with its image of God being multifaceted, may have emerged, at least in part, in response to
Christian monotheism attempting to portray itself in a way that could supplant the pluralistic
nature of deity inherent in polytheism. See idem, A Neglected Motive for Second-Century
Trinitarianism, JTS, n. s. XXXI, 2 (1980), 35667, esp. 3657.
147
I am following closely here the lucid and informative discussion of this topic in L. W.
Barnard, Justin Martyr, 5463.
148
Once in the First Apology (47) and seven times in Dialogue with Trypho (100104, 106),
Justin speaks of the memoirs of the apostles. Four more times in the Dialogue (105, 107) he
speaks of memoirs.
149
Ap. I.33; Dial. 88, 100104, 106.
150
L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr, 59.
43
the Fourth Gospel.151 R. M. Grant expressing greater confidence declares, it is

virtually certain that he knew the Gospel of John.152 Still, Barnard deduces, Justins
use of Johns Gospel appears tentative, and calls into question the extent to which
Justin regarded this Gospel to be scripture.153
With regard to non-canonical writings, A. J. Bellinzoni concludes his study of the
sayings of Jesus in Justins writings asserting, there is a considerable amount of
evidence that indicates that Justins sources were not always the canonical gospels
themselves but rather post-canonical sources based on the synoptic gospels, but also
that there is no evidence to support the position that Justin is dependent on one or
more non-canonical gospels.154 Bellinzoni believes that the Martyrs citations of the
sayings of Jesus most closely resemble those of a post-synoptic harmony of the
Gospels, and, more specifically, appear characteristic of a vade mecum designed to
answer and refute challenges to the faith.155 With regard to other New Testament
books, although many allusions to them appear in his authentic works, the only clearly
discernible citation stems from Revelation 20:2. Otherwise the Martyrs writings
contain no precise quotations from the New Testament, although scholars recognize
connections with various other canonical books.156
Although he was not the literary or intellectual equal of Athenagoras, and certainly
not of Origen, Justin Martyr stands tall in the light of historical evaluation for his
pioneering efforts to integrate the rational basis of philosophical integrity with his
belief in Jesus as the incarnate Logos and resurrected Christ. As such, Justins esteemed
place among the Christian apologists requires no apology.
151
L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr, 61. Most notably one thinks of the apparent reference to
John 3:5 in Justin, Ap. I.51 (see ANF I, 183), although, as D. Moody Smith points out, Justin
here neither cites his source nor applies to it the moniker memoirs, his typical term for
Synoptic Gospels. See D. Moody Smith, John (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries;
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 24.
152
153
L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr, 6061.
154
A. J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr (NovTSup XVII; Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1967), 139.
155
A. J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr, 14041.
156
L. W. Barnard, e.g., reports the connections between Acts 13:27, 28, 48 and Ap. I.49;
Acts 1:8, 9, 2:33 and Ap. I.1; Acts 7:52 and Dial. 16; Acts 4:27 and Ap. I.40; Romans 4:1011
and Dial. 23; 1 Corinthians 5:8 and Dial. 14, 111; 1 Corinthians 12:710 and Dial. 39; as well as
2 Thessalonians, Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews, 1 John, and possibly 1 Peter. Barnard
additionally calls attention to Justins constant reiteration of the Pauline phrase prwto/tokov
pa/shv kti/sewv, and suggests that Justins desire to take exception to Marcion indicates a
familiarity on the part of Justin with Marcions writings and the Pauline epistles as a group.
Barnard concludes his observations, stating, Only the Pastoral Epistles appear to have left no
impression on Justins writings. Idem, Justin Martyr, 623.
44
Tatian. As an author, we are told, Tatian was prolific; yet history has bequeathed to us
portions of only two of his works. Although he is probably best known for his
Diatessaron, a harmonized account of the Jesus narrative consisting of material edited
from the four canonical Gospels, we should not overlook the fact that Tatian also
wrote an apology. In fact, Oratio ad Graecos, or The Discourse to the Greeks, is his only
composition that survives in full.157 A firm date for the work remains uncertain, but
Miroslav Marcovich offers reasons for dating the work between 165172 C.E.158 R. M.
Grant, though, believes Tatian was, in part, aroused to write this work in response to
the publication of and aftermath associated with Celsus True Word; he, therefore,
prefers to place the distribution of Oratio a bit later, nearer the episode of the Gallican
Martyrs, which took place around 177178 C.E.159 On this point, however, Arthur J.
Droge disagrees with Grant, acknowledging that Tatian could have known the treatise
of Celsus, but avowing that the evidence is lacking to prove that Tatian had Celsus
specifically in mind when he composed his defense.160 Droge remains unconvinced
that the criticisms advanced in True Doctrine were unique to Celsus, and proffers as the
greater likelihood that Tatian was responding to ideas that were common in educated
pagan circles. Despite this lack of consensus surrounding the specifics related to this
work, however, Discourse to the Greeks heralds Tatian as more than just a harmonizer of
texts; he labored as a Christian apologist. Later in this volume, in fact, I will join
swords with those scholars who argue that, at least in part, apologetic motivation
prompted Tatians compilation of the Diatessaron.161
157
Recent critical editions have been compiled by Molly Whittaker, ed. and trans., Tatian:
Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982); and Miroslav Marcovich, ed.,
Tatiani: Oratio ad Graecos (PTS 43; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995).
158
M. Marcovich, Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos, 23. Marcovich contends that the text of Oratio
offers hints that Tatian knew of the death of Justin, which occurred around 165 C.E., and
establishes the terminus ante quem on the basis of when, according to Eusebius, Tatian vacated
Rome to return east and set up his own sect, the ascetic Encratites.
159
160
Arthur J. Droge, Homer or Moses?, 99100.
161
See, e.g., William L. Petersen, Tatians Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and
History in Scholarship (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 26, wherein he states that along with the goal of
evangelism and the wish to reproduce as fully as possible the richness of the tradition, a third
factor in the design of Gospel harmonies like the Diatessaron seems to have been the desire
to disarm critics of Christianity, such as Celsus, who used the inconsistencies and contradictions
in the gospels to prove that the new religion was a fraud. T. Baarda also argues persuasively
for this position. See idem, DIAFWNIA-SUMFWNIA: Factors in the Harmonization of the
Gospels, Especially in the Diatessaron of Tatian, in Gospel Traditions of the Second Century: Origins,
Recensions, Text, and Transmission, William L. Petersen, ed. (South Bend, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1989), 133154.
On the other hand, Kenneth Carroll offers a slightly different view, arguing that the New
Testament came into being to protect the church against the growing flood of apocryphal
literature, rather than as a reaction to heretics such as Marcion or Montanus. Still, he concedes
that concern for these popular heretics served as a catalyst to hasten the process. Their
45
Before proceeding, however, a brief word about his biography is in order. A pupil
of Justin, Tatian too was born of pagan parents. He was reared somewhere in Assyria,
traveled widely, and received a conventional Hellenistic education steeped in rhetoric
and philosophy. In the autobiographical account of his conversion (Or. 29), he
indicates that, after experiencing myriad cults and mystery religions and studying the
Greek philosophers, he came to believe through his encounter with the sacred
scriptures that Christian doctrine was the only true philosophy. Although in this he
sounds much like his master, Tatian and Justin differed widely in their appraisals of the
value of philosophy. Where Justin continued to maintain that features of the truth
could be found there, Tatian denounced Greek philosophy in its entirety. Indeed, there
is a sense in which Discourse to the Greeks reads, in the words of J. Quasten, not so
much as an apology for Christianity as it is a vehement, immoderate polemic treatise
which rejects and belittles the whole culture of the Greeks.162 Such severity and
extremity characterizes the Oratio, and explains his compulsion to retire from Rome
and, around 172 C.E., to return to Mesopotamia to establish a branch of the movement
more exclusive and ascetic in character.163 Known as the Encratites, members of this
sect renounced marriage as adultery, refused to eat meat, denied the salvation of Adam,
and reflected ideas characteristic of Christian Gnosticism. Also, their objection to
drinking wine led them to substitute water in place of wine during the celebration of
the Eucharist.164
contribution, though, was more negative than positive. Every New Testament that appeared in
the church at the close of the second century, he observes, possessed an expanded collection
of Pauls letters and a collection of four gospels, except in Syria, where Tatians Diatessaron
prevailed. For his full discussion see Kenneth Carroll, Tatians Influence on the Developing
New Testament, in Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs, eds. Studies in the History and Text of the
New Testament in honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, Ph.D. (SD XXIX; Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press, 1967), 5970.
162
163
Epiphanius (Pan. I.3.46) indicates an earlier departure, around 150 C.E., but the later date
attested by Eusebius (Chron. XII) seems more accurate in view of his reported relationships with
Justin, Irenaeus, a certain Rhodo (an opponent of Marcion), and Clement of Alexandria, and
his own leadership of the Roman school. See M. Whittaker, Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos, ix.
164
Recent scholarship has sought some clarity with regard to Tatians precise relationship
to Encratism. See, e.g., the useful discussion and further bibliography in William L. Petersen,
Tatians Diatessaron, 7683. Irenaeus, he explains, was the trailblazer in accusing Tatian of heresy,
associating him with both the Encratism of Saturninus and Marcion as well as the Gnosticism
of Valentinus. Petersen points out, however, that since Valentinians also exhibited ascetic
tendencies, it is not necessary to view these charges as distinct. Tatians affiliation with
Encratism recurs in the writings of Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Ps.-Tertullian, and Jerome, while
Eusebius embellishes the charge by identifying him as the founder of the Encratites. Petersen
points out the error in this, though, by citing the report of Irenaeus (Haer. I.28.1; cf. Eusebius,
Hist. eccl. IV.29.2) in naming Saturninus and Marcion as the wellspring for the ascetic sect.
Petersen points out further that, although evidence for the charge of Encratism is virtually
lacking in Oratio, a number of scattered verses of the Diatessaron lend credence to ascetic
46
Tatian begins Discourse to the Greeks with a harsh verbal assault on Greek
philosophy and culture, charging that whatever is of value in Greek thought has been
plagiarized from others (13). In the course of the treatise, he also assails mythology
and astrology (811); sorcery and medicine (1618); and pagan customs such as drama,
gladiatorial contests, dancing, rhetoric, and legislation (2228). With regard to
Christianity, he affirms the transcendence of God and the creative Logos who sprang
forth from God and who is in God (47). Perhaps the most compelling feature of
Oratio from an apologetic perspective is Tatians version of a chronological template
designed to demonstrate the antiquity of Christian beliefs (31, 3641). Developing a
concept first introduced by his mentor Justin, Tatian draws on Greek dates for the
Trojan War as well as other calendars and genealogies to construct a meticulously
detailed historical proof intended to demonstrate that Moses is older than the
Chaldeans, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and even Homer. As I noted with regard to Justin,
this is a theme that emerges as an apologetic convention, a standard ploy for claiming
the revered characteristic of antiquity for a religious movement perceived by many
pagan outsiders to be a novel superstition.165
Athenagoras of Athens. A contemporary of Tatian, almost nothing is known of the life
of Athenagoras.166 Among ancient sources, only one, Methodius, mentions him, and
that single reference only informs us that he authored the Plea (or Embassy) on Behalf of
Christians (Legatio). Two workshis apology and a work entitled On the Resurrection of
the Dead (De Resurrectione)are all that have survived him.167 Still, from these works we
influence. He summarizes the contributions of D. Plooij, A. Vbus, and Louis Leloir, all of
whom have located Diatessaronic readings which, in comparison with canonical parallels, bear
the imprint of an ascetically-minded redactor (79f.). Petersen concludes his discussion, Despite
the questionable character of some of the readings, there are enough solid readings...to conclude
that some passages of the Diatessaron were modified to conform with Encratite beliefs. This
tendency is one more piece of evidenceand the only piece of internal evidencewhich links
Tatian with the Diatessaron (82).
165
For a thoroughgoing discussion of this feature of apologetic discourse see A. J. Droge,
Homer or Moses?, especially Chapter 4 on Tatian (pp. 82101).
166
Even less is certain about the lives and work of two other apologists contemporary with
Tatian and Athenagoras, Miltiades and Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Miltiades is mentioned by
Tertullian (Val. 5) and Hippolytus (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. V.28.4) as someone who defended
Christianity against both pagans and heretics. Eusebius (Hist. eccl. IV.27) tells of collecting
several of the works of the prolific Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, including a
treatise addressed to Marcus Aurelius and five volumes Against the Greeks, as well as a number
of anti-heretical works. Since no work by either of these apologists has survived, no further
comment on these writers appears necessary or useful here. For more information and
references see J. Quasten, Patrology I, 22829.
167
For more thorough introduction to Athenagoras and critical editions and translations
of his apology see J. Geffcken, Zwei griechischen Apologeten; William R.. Schoedel, ed. and trans.,
Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972); and Leslie W. Barnard,
Athenagoras: A Study in Second Century Christian Apologetic (ThH 18; Paris: Beauchesne, 1972).
47
can discern that Athenagoras was a person of letters, an able thinker and writer, and
deserving of the epithet with which he identified himself, philosopher. J. Quasten, in
fact, describes him as unquestionably the most eloquent of the early Christian
apologists.168
The salutation of the Plea suggests that it was written sometime during the coregency shared by Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and so scholars generally assign
Legatio a date between 176180 C.E.169 With Athenagoras, the question of audience is
even more convoluted than usual. J. Geffcken was adamant that Legatio was literature
and not imperial correspondence, academic and not practical.170 Leslie W. Barnard was
less skeptical, and offered a number of reasons for taking seriously Athenagoras
addressing his embassy to the emperors. Marcus Aurelius, he reported, in squelching
the revolt of Cassius in 175 C.E., showed magnanimity toward the city and purportedly
carried himself there like a philosopher. Barnard wondered if it was not possible that
Athenagoras, upon learning of this, might well have taken the chance that the emperor
would actually give his words a hearing.171 Similarly, W. R. Schoedel observed that the
author wrote as though he were actually addressing his emperors, and he recalled
Philos Embassy and the writings of other ancient authors as evidence that emperors did
in fact receive such correspondence and treat it in a judicial manner. Such writings,
though, Schoedel pointed out, usually focused on a particular incident, and
Athenagoras omitted any such direct reference. So, Schoedel remained cautious in
presuming that Athenagoras could have actually directed his Embassy toward the
imperial court. He entertained the possibility that it could have been composed with
the hope of being read by the imperial Secretariate assigned such responsibilities, but
he concluded with greater conviction that Athenagoras was constructing an oration
in the forensic style in obedience to the rules of rhetoric.172
To be sure, Legatio is composed in a forensic style. The apology is constructed as
a refutation of three accusations that Athenagoras says pagans falsely direct at
Christians: atheism, Thyestean banquets (cannibalism), and Oedipean intercourse
168

W. R. Schoedel further notes that if one interprets literally the phrase deep peace in
Leg. I.2, it would probably indicate a date prior to the persecution of the Gallic Martyrs in
177178 C.E. Marcus Aurelius died March 17, 180 C.E. He is less inclined to accept the judgment
of Eusebius (Hist. eccl. V.1.1 ff.) that authorship of the apology was precipitated by these
martyrdoms in Lyons and Vienne. W. R. Schoedel, Athenagoras, xi.
170
J. Geffcken, Zwei griechischen Apologeten, 99, n. 1; cf. W. R. Schoedel, Athenagoras, xiiixiv,
and xiv, n. 17 for his consideration of and response to Geffcken on this point.
171
See the lucid discussion by L. W. Barnard on this question in idem, Athenagoras, 224,
where he concludes, In any event, it would seem that we should not be too sceptical about the
historical basis of Leg. II although, no doubt, Athenagoras also intended his apology to have a
wider circulation in the Graeco-Roman world. (24)
172
W. R. Schoedel, Athenagoras, xiixiii.
169
48
(incest).173 To the first charge, Athenagoras maintained that Christians were not
atheists, but monotheists. It was out of devotion to their one true revealed God that
they held back homage to idols, demons, and other presumed deities. Regarding
cannibalism, the apologist insisted that Christians refrained not only from committing
murder, but also from attending events in the arena in which murder was perpetrated
as spectacle. By such restraint, he attested, Christians demonstrated a greater regard for
human life than did pagans. Finally, with respect to the charge of incest, Athenagoras
pleaded innocent. Christians, he explained, esteemed marriage, chastity, and even
virginity. He even went so far as to label any second marriage a gilded adultery.174
The persistence and diligence with which Athenagoras addressed these accusations of
immorality marked his attempt to meet with equal force the seriousness of the threat
these frequently-voiced charges posed.175
Theophilus of Antioch. Eusebius informs us that Theophilus was the sixth bishop of
Syrian Antioch.176 His writings indicate that, like Justin and Tatian before him, he was
born to pagan parents and became the beneficiary of a Hellenistic education. His
conversion to Christianity occurred in his maturity and was prompted by his intense
reading of scripture. Of his writings, only an apologetic work addressed to his pagan
friend Autolycus and consisting of three volumes survives.177 Because the chronology
outlined in the third volume ceases with the death of Marcus Aurelius, scholars date
the finished work just after 180 C.E.178 The question of audience appears most sagely
resolved, once again, by treating the work as a document that is addressed to a specific
individual but that clearly has a wider public audience in mind.
173
These charges and parodies can be located in such pagan voices as Marcus Fronto,
Lucian of Samosata, and Celsus. See the relevant sections above.
174
Leg. 33.46. The translation is that of W. R. Schoedel in idem, Athenagoras, 81; cf. decent
adultery, the phrase used in ANF 2, 146 f.
175
As was noted above in our discussion of Marcus Fronto, Lucian of Samosata, and
Celsus.
176
Hist. eccl. IV.20. Yet, R. M. Grant (Greek Apologists, 143) points out that Eusebius
apparently was unfamiliar with Book III of Ad Autolycum, because the historian reported the
year 177 C.E. as the end of the episcopate of Theophilus, whereas Autol. III.27 specifically
mentions the death of Marcus Aurelius. Of course, it is also possible that Eusebius was in error
or that Theophilus retired as bishop but continued to write.
177
For introduction and texts see Robert M. Grant, ed. and trans. Theophilus of Antioch: Ad
Autolycum. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970) and idem, Greek Apologists, 140174; Miroslav
Marcovich, ed., Theophili Antiocheni: Ad Autolycum (PTS 44; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter,
1995); and J. Quasten, Patrology I, 23642. More extensive bibliography may be located in these
references.
178
J. Quasten, Patrology I, 237. R. M. Grant (Greek Apologists, 143), however, notes that
Irenaeus familiarity with the first two books of Ad Autolycum suggests that they were written
earlier.
49
Ad Autolycum features a number of themes readily recognizable as stock apologetic

ploys. In Book I , for example, he defends the name Christian by employing a play
on the word xrhsto/v, i.e., good or useful. Theophilus states that he bears the
name Christian in hopes of proving of good use (eu0xrhsto/v) to God, while he
questions whether Autolycus considers himself of no use (a)xrhsto/v) to God.179
Also, with regard to homage due the emperor, Theophilus echoes sentiments rooted
in the New Testament tradition (e.g., Rom 13:1f., 1 Cor 9:17, 1 Pet 2:1517) and
familiar in apologetic discourse as far back as Aristides.
Accordingly, I will pay honor to the emperor not by worshiping him but by praying
for him. I worship the God who is real and true God, since I know that the emperor
was made by him.180
In Book II, Theophilus redirects his discussion in the form of an attack on the
foibles of pagan religion. The bishop ridicules as absurd the idolatry and mythology of
pagan religion, and, in much the same way pagan critics assail Christian scriptures,
highlights inconsistencies and the lack of harmony he finds in pagan tales.181 He then
turns his attention to his scriptures, and spends much of the rest of Book II
interpreting the Hebrew scriptures, especially Genesis and the creation narrative, from
a Christian perspective, and often with allegorical license.182
Theophilus of Antioch begins Book III with a salutation that recalls Lukes
address to his Theophilus at the beginnings of Luke and Acts, speaking of the many
histories that speak in vain and his desire to compose a work of clarifying precision.
It is within this volume that Theophilus follows in the footsteps of Justin and Tatian
in laying out his own version of a chronological argument for the antiquity of the
Christian faith. Like his predecessors, his concern is to demonstrate the temporal
priority of Moses over all other ancient sages and writers in order to secure the
benefits associated with antiquity for the Christian movement.183 Recalling
Athenagoras, Book III also contains a defense of Christian behavior against the
perceptions of unchastity and incestuous promiscuity (III.4, 8, 13), cannibalism and
Thyestean banquets (III.15), and atheism (III.9), as well as Theophilus tailored
response to the pejorative description of Christianity as a novel and foolish religion
(III.4). Once again, not only are these patterns of discourse frequent in the apologetic
corpus, but many of these themes will compel notice in some of the scribal
modifications that will be examined in subsequent chapters.
179
Autol. I.1.
Autol. I.11.
181
Autol. II.18.
182
Autol. II.938.
183
Autol. III.1629.
180
50
Melito of Sardis. Bishop of Sardis in Lydia in the later second century, Melito was
remembered by his contemporaries as a person of great spiritual devotion and zeal for
the faith.184 Although today he is probably best known for his severely polemical antiJewish Paschal Homily, of greater interest for this present study is another work for
which he was responsible. Sometime during the decade beginning in 170 C.E., Melito
addressed an apology on behalf of Christianity to Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Of this
work only fragments have survived, the most important of which were preserved by
Eusebius.185 These fragments demonstrate Melito to be among the most diplomatically
savvy of the Christian apologists. Laying claim to the common view that Roman piety
had led to Roman power, Melito called attention to the fact that the rise to prominence
of the Roman Empire coincided precisely with the incarnation of Jesus during the
reign of Caesar Augustus. Indeed, he believed, it was providence more than
coincidence.
The most convincing proof that the flourishing of our religion has been a boon to
the Empire thus happily inaugurated is the fact that the Empire has suffered no
mishaps since the reign of Augustus, but on the contrary, everything has increased
its splendor and fame in accordance with the general prayer.186
Melito was perhaps the most articulate spokesperson for this apologetic theme,
a message crucial in a Roman world iron-fisted and swift to judge even the hint of
treason. Where pagan critics fostered suspicions that Christians were subversives,
Melito stood for those apologists who negotiated the far different claim that Christians
were in fact a boon to the emperor and his empire. It may be from Melito that
Tertullian later borrowed this notion and used it in his own apologetic discourse.187 To
be sure, this was an argument often imitated. Indeed, such diplomatic strategies, as we
shall see below in Chapter 5, also left an imprint on the scribal tradition of the
canonical Gospels.
184
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. V.24.5. See also the discussions in J. Quasten, Patrology I, 24248; R.
M. Grant, Greek Apologists, 9298. For fuller discussions of Melito and Peri Pascha see Alistair
Stewart-Sykes, The Lambs High Feast: Melito, Peri Pascha, and the Quartodeciman Paschal Liturgy at
Sardis (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998); Idem, On Pascha (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press,
2001); Idem, Melitos Anti-Judaism, JECS 5 (1997): 27183; Thomas Halton, Stylistic
Devices in Melito Peri Pascha, in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, ed. Patrick Granfield and
Josef A. Jungmann (Mnster: Aschendorff, 1970), 24955; A. Wifstrand, The Homily of Melito
on the Passion, VC 2 (1948): 20123; and S. G. Hall, Melito in Light of the Passover
Haggadah, JTS n. s. 2 (1971): 2946.
185
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. IV.26. For the texts see S. G. Hall, ed., Melito of Sardis: On Pascha and
Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979).
186
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. IV.26.8. This is the translation of J. Quasten, Patrology I, 242. Cf.
Kirsopp Lake, ed. and trans., Eusebius: Ecclessiastical History, 2 Volumes (LCL; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1949), I.39091.
187
R. M. Grant believes so. Idem, Greek Apologists, 18788.
51
Clement of Alexandria. Born around 150 C.E. probably in Athens, his pagan parents saw
that Titus Flavius Clemens received a thorough Greek education.188 His lifetime love
of learning led him throughout Italy, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt as he sought to hear
the most noted educators of his day. It was in Alexandria, finally, that he met
Pantaenus, who mentored him prior to Clement succeeding him as head of the
Alexandrian school.189 Persecutions under Septimus Severus forced him away from
Egypt to security in Cappadocia, where he died near 215 C.E.
Clements writings appear to confirm a breadth in his education and a depth to
his intellect, showing him to be conversant in poetry, philosophy, mythology and
literature.190 Allusions to biblical texts from both testaments number in the thousands,
while hundreds of times he refers to the classics of Greek literature. Although it
presses the boundaries of the category to identify Clement as an apologist, his
Protrepticus (or Exhortation to the Greeks) does show some kinship with earlier Christian
188
See J. Quasten, Patrology II, 536.

Current scholarship continues to dispute whether in fact there did exist a so-called
Alexandrian School. Eusebius makes reference to the school in Hist. eccl. 4.11; 5.10.2; 6.3.8;
7.32.30; 15.1; and 28.1. M. Hornschuh (Das Leben des Origenes und die Entstehung der
alexandrinische Schule, Zeitschrift fr Kirchengeschichte 71 (1960): 193214), G. Bardy (Aux
origines de lEcole dAlexandrie, RSR 27 (1937): 6590), and Johannes Munck (Untersuchen ber
Klemens von Alexandrien (Stuttgart, 1933), 185) accuse Eusebius of confusing official, public
catechesis with private instruction, and thereby dispute the accuracy of his description of an
Alexandrian School; moreover, they express the widely held view that no official catechetical
institution existed in Alexandria until after Clement.
Andr Mhat (tude sur les Stromates de Clment dAlexandrie, PatSor 7 (Paris, 1966), 6270)
challenged this consensus on the basis that scholars reaching this conclusion were operating
with a severely restricted definition of catechetical. Rather than insisting that catechetical
meant public and official education leading to baptism, Mhat offered reasons for accurately
applying the term school to the private instruction practiced in Alexandria by such notables
as Pantaenus and Clement. Robert L. Wilken (Alexandria: A School for Training in Virtue,
in Schools of Thought in the Christian Tradition, ed. Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984),
1530) credits Mhat with drawing attention to the continuity that existed between the early
instructors and later catechists of Alexandria, but also recognizes that his work has failed to
satisfy those who criticize the reports of Eusebius. Wilken, therefore, defines the phrase school
of Alexandria as a way of speaking of the intellectual and spiritual activity of the early teachers
in Alexandria at the time Christianity first comes into historical focus there at the end of the
second century (18). R. M. Grant (Theological Education at Alexandria, in The Roots of
Egyptian Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson and James E. Goehring (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986,
17889)who portrays Philo, the Therapeutae, and Valentinian Gnosticism as among the
shaping influences of Alexandrian Christianityjoins Wilken in redefining Alexandrian
instruction in terms of ideas and exegetical method rather than basic catechesis (18085).
Wilken succeeds in making a case for identifying the school of Alexandria as a center for
training in virtue (19).
190
R. M. Grant is less convinced, asserting that the brevity and scope of his citations offers
reason to attribute them to Clements use of standard anthologies rather than his mastery of
vast quantities of literature. Idem, Greek Apologists, 180.
189
52
apologies, particularly in its ridicule of pagan mythology and assertion of greater

antiquity. Indications in the volume suggest that he was acquainted with Melito and
Tatian.191 Still, as J. Quasten points out, Clement represented an evolution of thought
beyond that of the earlier apologists. For him it was no longer necessary to defend the
faith against defamation and trumped up charges. His task was not to defend
Christians but to convince pagans to join them.192 In this regard, he most nearly
resembles Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho and the Octavius of Minucius Felix.
Origen. Probably the greatest scholar of Christian antiquity,193 Origen (c. 185254
C.E.) is almost certainly the most important source for informing the present study.194
Undoubtedly one of the great intellectuals of his day, he labored as a prolific author,195
skilled linguist,196 brilliant theologian, and firm defender of the faith who was destined
in time to be, by the very church he helped mold and preserve, labeled a heretic.197
Henri Crouzel asserts that, with the possible exception of Cyprian of Carthage, more
191
For references and more discussion see R. M. Grant, Greek Apologists, 180.
J. Quasten, Patrology II, 8.
193
A widely held consensus here voiced by B. Altaner, Patrology, 223.
194
The amount of material published on the subject of Origen is imposing. Fine scholarly
introductions may be located in the work of Henri Crouzel, Origen (A. S. Worrall, trans.; San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989; original French edition, 1985) and Joseph W. Trigg, Origen
(London and New York: Routledge, 1998). Extensive additional bibliography may be located
in Henri Crouzel, Bibliographie critique dOrigne and Supplements 1 and 2 (The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1971, 1982, and 1996).
195
The volume of his literary output surpasses that of all other writers of Christian
antiquity, observes B. Altaner, Patrology, 225.
196
With the support of his wealthy patron Ambrose, Origen compiled the monumental
Hexapla, a comparative edition of the Hebrew Bible in which six parallel columns reported the
texts of (1) the Hebrew text; (2) the Hebrew text transliterated into Greek characters; and the
Greek translations of (3) Aquila; (4) Symmachus; (5) The Septuagint (LXX); and (6)
Theodotion. See B. Altaner, Patrology, 22526; J. Quasten, Patrology II, 4445.
197
Dispute of his orthodoxy arose shortly after his death, and grew more fierce when
Epiphanius and Theophilus of Alexandria assumed the mantle of the opposition around 400
C.E. Controversy raged off and on until Emperor Justinian I at the Council of Constantinople
in 543 C.E. issued an edict condemning a certain number of theses held by Origen, an edict to
which all the bishops of the Empire gave their assent. B. Altaner (Patrology, 163) appears correct
in this assessment. J. Quasten (Patrology II, 40) notes the contradictions of his life, stating:
True, he committed errors, as we shall see, but no one can doubt but that he always
wanted to be an orthodox and believing Christian. He states at the beginning of his
main theological work: That alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no
respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition (De princ. praef. 2). He strove to
follow that rule and sealed it with his blood at the end of his life.
For brief additional comments see B. Altaner, Patrology, 22425, 23544; J. Quasten, Patrology II,
4043. For a thorough study on the Origenist controversies see Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist
Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1992).
192
53
is known of the life of Origen than any other ante-Nicene writer.198 Born to Christian
parents in Alexandria (his father Leonidas was martyred c. 202 C.E.), his bishop
Demetrius named the gifted eighteen-year-old head of the Alexandrian catechetical
school after Clement was forced to flee to Cappadocia around 203 C.E. The scholarly
literature on Origen is vast, and limits of both space and focus forbid a thoroughgoing
analysis of him and his writings here. Yet, this is largely unnecessary. Contra Celsum
provides the natural and obvious point of contact between Origen and this study.199
The pages of Contra Celsum are unique in form with regard to the other apologetic
works we have examined thus far. Commissioned by his wealthy Christian benefactor
Ambrose, the volume consists of Origens direct rebuttal to an older work of pagan
polemic against Christianity, the True Word of Celsus. Origen structured the book in
the form of point-counterpoint, first citing a point of contention from Celsus, and
then addressing it directly with the intention of refuting his argument. In one of the
many ironic strokes of history, the polemical treatise of Celsus would have been
completely lost, probably by the end of the fifth century, had it not been for Origens
numerous and lengthy citations in his apology. One could reasonably infer from his
preface that Origen anticipated as much, when he wrote:
Our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was silent when false witnesses spoke against him,
and answered nothing when he was accused; he was convinced that all his life and
actions among the Jews were better than any speech in refutation of the false witness
and superior to any words that he might say in reply to the accusations. And, Godloving Ambrose, I do not know why you wanted me to write an answer to Celsus
false accusations in his book against the Christians and the faith of their churches. It
is as though there is not in the mere facts a clear refutation better than any written
reply, which dispels the false charges and deprives the accusations of any plausibility
and force....Accordingly, I have no sympathy with anyone who had faith in Christ
such that it could be shaken by Celsus (who is no longer living the common life
among men but has already been dead a long time), or by any plausibility of
argument. I do not know in what category I ought to reckon one who needs written
arguments in books to restore and confirm him in his faith after it has been shaken
by the accusations brought by Celsus against the Christians. But nevertheless, since
among the multitude of people supposed to believe some people of this kind might
be found,...we decided to yield to your demand and to compose a treatise in reply to
that which you sent us.200
In many respects, the eight volumes of Contra Celsum serve as a compendium of

apologetic discourse. Most of the main objections to Christianity raised by pagans and
(presumably) razed by apologists can be located here. So, lest we get mired in
198
H. Crouzel, Origen, 1.
For the critical edition see Marcel Borret, Origne: Contra Celse (Sources Chrtiennes, 5
vols.; Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 19671976). The best known English translation is that of
Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953).
200
Cels. Preface 1, 4. Translated by H. Chadwick, Contra Celsum, 35.
199
54
redundancy, it seems prudent to truncate our review of the Greek apologists at this
point. Ample opportunity for considering Origen and his Contra Celsum will arise
during the course of our study.
Select Latin Apologists: Tertullian and Minucius Felix. Although Greek remained the lingua
franca of the eastern empire for some time, Latin began to make inroads as the
dominant language west of Rome and in Africa by the middle of the second and early
third centuries.201 Therefore, alongside these Greek authors, we should not overlook
two important Latin apologists of the third century, Tertullian and Minucius Felix.202
Their work also commands our attention here.
In terms of earlier Christian apologies, the form of the Octavius of Marcus
Minucius Felix most closely resembles Justins Dialogue with Trypho.203 It was composed
in the form of a philosophical dialogue involving three characters. One, the author, an
attorney residing in Rome, assumes the role of mediator in a debate between his two
friends, the pagan Caecilius and the Christian Octavius. The work was most probably
directed at pagan readers, since it resists the use of scripture and refrains from
discussing doctrine.204 In the story, the three friends are traveling together when
Caecilius pays homage to a statue of Serapis, the event that provokes the debate.
Making his case, Caecilius contends that when faced with the choice of the invisible
god of the Christians or the traditional gods of Rome, it is best to remain loyal to the
tradition underlying Romes greatness. Moreover, he passes on a vituperative depiction
of Christians consisting of a harsh litany of ad hominem slanders, the source for which
is said to be his friend and countryman, a reference many scholars believe to be
Marcus Fronto.205 Octavius for his part offers a seriatim rebuttal to each of the
arguments adduced by Caecilius. Most telling is his argument that accusations against
Christian practices and behaviors consist of a slander born of demons. The debate
depicted in the Octavius ends with the conversion of the pagan Caecilius to the
Christian faith, all to the delight of Minucius Felix.
Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus was born in Carthage to pagan parents
near the middle of the second century. The mature Tertullian (c. 155220? C.E.) is said
to have enjoyed a reputation as a skilled lawyer.206 After his conversion about 193 C.E.,
201
B. Altaner, Patrology, 161.

For a recent introduction to Tertullian and Minucius Felix see Simon Price, Latin
Christian Apologetics: Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Cyprian, in Apologetics in the Roman
Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Mark Edwards, et al., eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999), 10529.
203
B. Altaner (Patrology, 163) also rightly compares it to Cicero's De natura deorum.
204
B. Altaner (Patrology, 163) appears correct in this assessment.
205
Minucius Felix, Oct. 89. For determining the identity of the friend from Cirta to be
Fronto see the discussion in the section above.
206
Although Eusebius speaks of Tertullian as one skilled in Roman law (Hist. eccl. 2.2.4),
T. D. Barnes makes a compelling case for not identifying the Christian Tertullian with the
Roman jurist of the same name, and for questioning whether he ever was a professional lawyer.
202
55
he returned to Carthage and began to employ his abilities as an advocate on behalf of

the Christian cause, leaving an impressive and influential literary legacy. Although
Jerome (Vir. ill. 53) reports that he was a priest, since Tertullian himself remains silent
on the matter, whether or not he was ordained into the clergy remains disputed.207 The
year 197 saw the publication of his two most important apologetic works, Ad nationes
(To the Heathen) and Apologeticus (Apology). In the first of these, a two-volume work,
Tertullian offered both a defense of Christianity against pagan attacks, and his own
assault on the moral and religious decay he associates with paganism.. His Apology,
addressed to the provincial governors of the Roman Empire, represented an original
contribution to apologetic theme, style, and rhetoric. Where previous apologies had
been cast in the practiced language of philosophical discourse and the familiar tropes
of Hellenistic rhetoric, Tertullian composed this work using judicial terminology, the
language of the courts. He did so in order to convict as unjust those who accused
Christians of immoral or treasonous behavior. Like Athenagoras, he addressed the
specific charges of sacramental cannibalism and Thyestean banquets; but he answered
those charges as an attorney rather than as a theologian or philosopher. He contended
that a double standard was at work with regard to Christians that made their trials a
farce. Where all other criminals received a fair trial, rumor served as the only witness
necessary to condemn a Christian.208 Tertullians juridical skill reached its zenith when
he faced what he considered the most serious charges directed against Christians:
contempt for the religion of the state (which was understood as atheism) and treason.
In response to these charges he constructed a formidable syllogism. Admitting that
Christians did not revere the deities of the pagans, he contended that, first, what
passed for pagan gods were actually deceased humans and inanimate idols, and,
second, that Christians did in fact worship the one true God, revealed in scripture to
be the creator of the world. Therefore, he concluded, since in truth the pagan gods
were not gods at all, it was unjust to convict Christians of atheism for their failure to
pay them homage.209
Tertullian also developed the notion we encountered earlier in Theophilus of
Antioch and Melito of Sardis that the emperor and empire prosper in large measure
due to the pious and frequent prayers of Christians. Speaking of the emperors,
Tertullian wrote:
He gets his sceptre where he first got his humanity; his power where he first got his
breath of life. Thither we lift our eyes....Without ceasing for all our emperors we offer
Tertullian, in the estimation of Barnes, undoubtedly possessed a familiarity with legal idiom and
an interest in certain aspects of the law, but these are easily attributable to a level of knowledge
commensurate with the typical rhetorical education of his day. Cf. idem, Tertullian: A Historical
and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 2229.
207
B. Altaner (Patrology, 166) is as convinced that he was not as J. Quasten (Patrology II,
24647) is sure that he was.
208
Tertullian, Ap. VII.13.
209
Ap. XXIV.12.
56

prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the
imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest,
whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.210
In my view, his writings and the structure of his arguments show that Tertullian
is addressing believers within the fold to a lesser extent than any other apologist. That
is to say, Tertullian is not preaching to the choir. His words seem geared to the
pagan public and are meant to persuade. He sounds like a defense attorney prepared
to go to trial and determined to win his case.
Unique as Tertullian is among the apologists, however, his brand of determination
and his special concern for charges of a public and political nature appear to have left
an impression on certain scribes. Readers may anticipate locating in Chapter 5 evidence
in the scribal tradition that coincides with Tertullians passion for eliminating the
public perception that Christians are guilty of treason against Rome.
IN SUMMARY: A PROFILE OF APOLOGETIC INTERESTS
The sages tell us that, often, what we see depends on how we see. The search for
evidence of apologetic interests in the textual tradition of the canonical Gospels
requires us to cultivate an ability to harvest fresh insights from fields that have been
reaped and gleaned many times over. In concluding this chapter, my purpose is to
introduce the features of a profile in such a way that we might recognize signs of
apologetic interests when we encounter them. Sailors say that the way one locates
another ship on the distant horizon is not to look at the horizon but above it, in order
to see the contours of the boat against the background sky. Similarly, evidence of
apologetic interests in the textual tradition can be located only by looking beyond the
variant readings themselves to the discursive backdrop from which they initially arose
and against which they presently, with some measure of strain, may be discerned. Thus,
ours is a search for intersections, precisely the intersection of variant readings that can
be determined by reason to be intentional in nature with motivations that sensibly
coincide with recognizable apologetic themes, strategies, motifs, or concerns. For
purposes of order and convenience, I have organized the findings of my research into
four chapters, each of which represents one of the patent themes featured in the
polemic discourse between pagans and Christians. Chapter Two concerns issues
related to intellectual integrity, and features an analysis of scribal activities related to
harmonization, correction, and efforts to buttress Christian claims to antiquity by
emphasizing the prophetic foundation of the faith. Chapter Three details the pagan
assault on the personality and deeds of Jesus and adduces a number of variant readings
that reflect typical apologetic responses, and suggests the development of what we
might with some exaggeration label, The Gospel According to the Scribes. Chapter
Four focuses on criticism directed at the followers of Jesus, namely that they consisted
210
Ap. XXX. Translated by S. Thelwell, ANF, III.42.
57
of Fools, Fanatics, and Females. There we will locate and examine a series of
deliberately altered readings of passages related to Jesus followers that appear to
replicate apologetic rhetorical strategies. Finally, Chapter Five recalls those tensions
that existed between the Roman state and Christianity, and adduces several groups of
variant readings that appear to have been influenced by a desire to displace concerns
about Christians meeting in secret, to exonerate Pilate of his role in the death of
Jesus, to qualify some of the kingdom language used in the Gospels, and to take the
offensive, characterizing opponents of Christianity as evil, hypocritical, and violent.
Each of these chapters may be thought of as an ellipse drawn around two foci.
First, I begin each chapter with an effort to establish the contours of apologetic
interests or concerns related to the specified topic addressed therein. This requires me
to offer a brief but summary characterization of representative features of both pagan
criticism and apologetic response related to the content of each chapter. Second, the
substance of each chapter features an examination of those variant readings I have
adduced that, in my judgment, show first of all evidence of intentional scribal activity
and, moreover, appear to have been modified in ways that mirror the particular
apologetic themes or dynamics as previously discerned within the discourse between
apologists and their pagan opponents.
Many of my treatments of these selected variant readings will strike a familiar
chord with New Testament textual scholars, but in some instances it has been
necessary for me to cut against the grain of scholarly consensus (or at least the opinion
of the editorial committee for N-A27/UBS4) in order to demonstrate the direction of
scribal activity away from the original text. The requisite energy for this effort has
been born, in part, from an optimism that the evidence reported herein will prove
compelling, and that readers will come to believe with me that scribes engaged in the work
of transmitting the canonical Gospels did indeed, in some cases, modify their exemplars under the
influence of apologetic interests.
2
ANTIQUITY, HARMONY,
AND FACTUAL CONSISTENCY:
ISSUES OF INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY
Tertullian captured the prevailing sentiments of many in the Greco-Roman world
when he wrote, That which is truer is prior.1 Claim to antiquity instantly afforded
religious cults and philosophical schools the badge of legitimacy. Conversely, novelty
was viewed with suspicion, if not disdain. The so-called true doctrine that provided
the title for Celsus second-century polemic against Christianity referred to what he and
many of his contemporaries believed was an ancient, perennial, and universal religious
truth that underlay all civilized existence and exposed as pretenders any and all latterday religious movements.2 As Arthur Droge so succinctly expressed it, nothing could
be both new and true.3 Thus, those who pronounced something new were affixing
a pejorative label of some consequence, and it is clear that their opponents were so
challenging Christians. Some outside observers of Christianity, for example, as they
heard that the founder of this sect had been born in the days of Caesar Augustus and
died during Pilates tenure as prefect, promptly and pejoratively classified the
movement as new. The opening words of the third book the Christian apologist
Theophilus addressed to Autolycus are indicative of how prevalent this issue had
become by the later part of the second century:
Since historians desire to write a multitude of books to no avail (pro_v kenh_n
do&can), some about gods or wars or chronologies and others about useless
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. V.4.1, cited according to the translation of Arthur J. Droge, Homer
or Moses? (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), 10. Cf. ANF, Vol III, 349.
2
See, e.g., Cels. I.14. The treatise survives only in quotations cited by Origen in his
apologetic rebuttal Contra Celsum. For the critical edition see M. Borret, Origne Contre Celse, 5
volumes (Sources Chrtiennes; Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 1968). The standard English
translation is Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1953). The classic introduction is Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das
Christentum (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1955).
3
Droge, Homer or Moses?, 9. This work is a thoroughgoing treatment of how the charge of
novelty represented a challenge to early Christians and how they appealed to the Old Testament
and especially the prophets and Moses to substantiate their claims that Jesus was older than
Moses who was older than Homer who was older than Plato, etc.
59
60

myths (mu&qwn a)nwfe/lwn) and other pointless labours such as you yourself
have been engaged in up to the present time (you do not shrink from
enduring that labour, though after meeting us you still regard the word of
truth as silly, fancying that our scriptures are new and modern [prosfa&touv
kai\ newterika&v]), therefore I too will not shrink from summing up for you,
with Gods help, the antiquity of our writings (th\n a)rxaio&thta tw= n par
h(mi=n gramma&twn). I will make a brief memorandum for you so that you
will not shrink from reading it but will recognize the nonsense of other
writers.4
Theophilus went on to add, They also say that our message has been made public
only recently (w(v prosfa&ton), and that we have nothing to say in proof of our truth
and our teaching; they call our message foolishness (mwri&an).5 Tatian, as another
example, reported that his contenders accused him of introducing new
(kainotomei=) barbarian dogma.6
Moreover, as pagan intellectuals began to probe the Christian scriptures in an
effort to contradict the adherents of this emerging sect, they located in these writings
what were for them fatal flaws. Factual errors, logical inconsistencies, variations in
separate witnesses, and Old Testament citations wrongly attributed all served as
lightning rods for the violent energies of Christian antagonists, in particular Porphyry.
For him, even such minor misdemeanors ranked as felonies of illogic and insinuated
the unreliability of Christian sacred writings. Inaccuracies in reference to the Hebrew
Bible were perceived as particularly egregious, since the Christian title to
antiquityand thus legitimacystemmed from appeal to prophecy.7 Challenges of
this sort constituted for those who rose to defend the faith a crisis of intellectual
integrity. In general, apologists sought to answer these charges by, first, refuting the
objection that Christianity was new, and, second, attempting to explain away those
points seen by antagonists as factual or logical inconsistencies.
In the sections that follow, I will first introduce and illustrate these apologetic
maneuvers as they are reflected in the dynamic interactions between Christian
opponents and defenders. I will then locate variant readings in the textual tradition of
the New Testament Gospels that correspond to these apologetic strategies and serve,
in my judgment, as evidence that scribes in reproducing manuscripts of the canonical
Christian Gospels occasionally did so under the influence of apologetic interests.
4
Ad Auto. III.1, cited according to Theophilus of Antioch: Ad Autolycum.(Text and Translation
by Robert M. Grant; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 100101.
5
Ad Auto. III.4. See Grant, Theophilus, 105.
6
Or. 35.2.
7
For a typical example of how Christian apologists used the Hebrew Bible prophetically
see Justin, Ap. I.3051and Dial. 1116; Porphyrys attempts to undermine such claims will be
discussed in detail below.
ANTIQUITY, HARMONY, AND FACTUAL CONSISTENCY
61
THE PAGAN ACCUSATION OF NOVELTY AND

THE APOLOGETIC CLAIM TO ANTIQUITY
Antagonistic denunciations directed at the novelty of Christianity were forcefully
developed in the writings of Celsus. At the foundation of his criticism lay the belief
that there existed an ancient doctrine which has existed from the beginning, which
has always been maintained by the wisest nations and cities and wise men.8 His
derision for the peculiarities of Judaism, therefore, reached a predetermined limit when
he acknowledged that Judaism was, at least, a traditional religion. Tradition, however,
erected no such barrier against his censure of Christianity. Christians, he maintained,
sidestepped any question put to them about their origins (II.4). Jesus he described as
one who only a very few years ago taught his doctrine (I.26), and quite recently
wandered around shamefully in the sight of all (VI.10). Through the mouthpiece of a
Jewish antagonista literary creation serving as his alter egoCelsus accused
Christians of severing themselves from any authoritative heritage by seceding from
Judaism, stating, You abandoned quite recently the law of our fathers (II.4). His
objection was not that they had borrowed from the past, but that they had perverted
it. They had misunderstood (parakou&ein, III.16; VI.7), corrupted
(parafqei&rein, IV.21, VII.58), and counterfeited (paraxara&ttein, IV.41 42)
ancient doctrine. Thus, he could boldly associate Christianitys revolt against the state
with the introduction of new ideas (kainotomi&a, III.5).
It was in this important regard that Eugene Gallagher gave nuance to Anna MiuraStranges contention that Celsus and Origen subscribed to a common Hellenistic
concept of a god or son of god. Where she believed this to be common ground
contested by the disputants, he insisted, rather, that they differed precisely on the
matter of whether a near contemporary might correctly be identified as divine, i.e.
as a god or son of god.9 In sharp contrast to Origens desire to sponsor Jesus for that
distinction, Celsus had limited his list of nominees to principals of the distant past,
inspired men of ancient times even earlier than Plato.10
In response to this denigrating characterization of their faith as novel, Christian
apologists by and large took the offensive. In varying ways and degrees of
Cels. I.14.
Eugene Gallagher, Divine Man or Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus (Chico, California:
Scholars Press, 1982), 42.
10
Cels. VII.28, 49, 58. See also the comments of Carl Andresen, Logos und Nomos, 138141,
154, 179, 183.
9
62
effectiveness, Justin,11 Tatian,12 Athenagoras,13 Theophilus of Antioch,14 Origen,15

Minucius Felix,16 and Tertullian17 all argued that, not only was Christianity not new,
but it was temporally prior to all other religions and philosophies. Among the early
apologists, only in Aristides is this strategy absent.18 In this as in many respects,
Christian apologists in these discussions were adapting arguments adduced earlier by
Jewish apologists such as Eupolemus, the anonymous Samaritan identified as PseudoEupolemus, Artapanus, and Josephus, who had similarly been driven to assert the
ancient origins of their religion and to defend their faith before a Hellenized audience.
This they did by formulating claims that philosophy was invented by Moses or that
Abraham was the founder of culture or that Judaism could be demonstrated
chronologically to be temporally prior to the philosophies or religions of Babylon,
11
Ap. I. 23, I.3153, I. 54, I.59.

Or. 29, 31, 3641.
13
Leg., 17.1, where Athenagoras argues that it is the Greek gods who issue from the pens
of Orpheus, Homer, and Hesiod, and are thus themselves very recent. See Athenagoras: Legatio
and De Resurrectione (Edited and translated by William R. Schoedel; Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1972), 35.
14
Ad Auto. II.33, III.1629.
15
Cels. I.16; IV.1114, 2021; VI.7; VII.28
16
Oct. XXXIV.5
17
Ap. XIX.
18
In his Apology, Aristidesa near contemporary of Celsustakes a boldly different
approach, admitting Christian novelty but attempting to use it to his advantage. And truly this
people is a new people, he writes, and there is something divine mingled with it. He argues
that truth is found only through disciplined pursuit, and it is Christians alone who so labor to
become righteous and thereby draw near this knowledge. Aristides thus endorses the great and
wonderful teaching found in Christian writings. See Ap. XVI, cited here in J. R. Harris, The
Apology of Aristides. (TS I; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893), 50. See also pp. 1923,
where Harris marshals evidence to suggest the possibility that Celsus was familiar with this work
of Aristides and wrote, at least in part, to refute him.
12
63
Egypt, or Greece.19 Laying claim to these same strategies, Christian apologists traced
the steps of their Jewish predecessors.
Justin Martyr, among surviving authors, was the first to contend that Christianity
was antecedent to Greek culture, though his evidence consisted mainly of literary
parallels between Plato and Moses and the prophets that demonstrated, at least to the
satisfaction of Justin, that Moses was more ancient than all the Greek writers.20 It was
left to Justins pupil, Tatian, to construct a chronological argument for the relative
antiquity of Christian and Greek traditions. According to A. J. Droge, the conception
of such a chronological blueprint was without precedent in Christian literature, and it
was transmitted in the form of sincerest flattery when it was imitated in the defenses
of Clement, Origen, and Eusebius.21 At the heart of Tatians reasoning was a
comparison of Moses with Homer, whom he considered to be the most ancient of
Greek poets and historians. By carefully calculating temporal references specified in
Greek literary works and Phoenician, Chaldean and Egyptian histories, Tatian
determined that Homer lived contemporary with the Trojan War while Moses predated
the war by four hundred years. The apologist offered further proof that Moses lived
before Cadmus introduced the alphabet, before Deucalions flood, before the
invention of agriculture, before the foundation of cities, even before the epic
Prometheus. In concluding his argument he announced, It is clear that Moses is older
than heroes, cities, and demons.22
As further corroboration for the primitive derivation of their religion Christian
apologists routinely mustered the oracles of the Hebrew prophets. As one instance,
Justin declared in his First Apology, We will now offer proof, not trusting mere
assertions, but being of necessity persuaded by those who prophesied [of Him] before
these things came to pass, for with our own eyes we behold things that have happened
19
For a fuller discussion of Jewish apologetic and its foundational influence on Christian
apologetic see Droge, Homer or Moses?, 1248; several relevant articles in Elizabeth Schssler
Fiorenza, Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity. (Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1976), especially Louis Feldman, Josephus as an Apologist of the GrecoRoman World: His Portrait of Solomon, 6898; and chapters five, six, and seven of Gregory
E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephos, LukeActs, and Apologetic Historiography
(NovTSup 64; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), 137225, 226310, and 311394. Sterling is attempting
to describe the discovery of a new genre, apologetic historiography, which he defines as the
story of a subgroup of people in an extensive prose narrative written by a member of the group
who follows the groups own traditions but Hellenizes them in an effort to establish the identity
of the group within the setting of the larger world(17). The extent to which he succeeds in
introducing a new genre is of less interest here than is his impressive reporting on the breadth
of primary source literature related to this topic, and his awareness that those persons concerned
with narrating the history of a religious subculture were keenly aware of the need to recast their
stories in terms palatable to the dominant forces of the Greco-Roman world.
20
Ap. I.23.1, I.44.8, 54.5. See also the discussion by Droge, Homer or Moses?, 9192.
21
A. J. Droge, Homer or Moses?, 92.
22
Or. 40.1.
64
and are happening just as they were predicted.23 A tenable association with the
prophets, they were convinced, served to graft immediate credibility onto nascent
Christianity by rooting its heritage in the distant past.24 Followers of the way, they
explained, depending on whether they were Jewish or Gentile, had from the beginning
either recognized or adopted the Jewish scriptures as their own. The prophets, in
particular, proved useful in explaining otherwise problematic elements of the faith; but,
in fact, Christian exegetes tended to impose a prophetic interpretation upon the
Pentateuch, Psalms, and most of the rest of the Hebrew Bible, as well. For example,
that Jesus was crucified like a common thief was a glaring scandal to both Jews and
Gentiles outside the faith, but apologists customarily retained the suffering servant
oracles of Isaiah to impose prophetic anticipation and rationalization upon the passion
narrative.25 Where Celsus accused Jesus of rushing greedily to drink the vinegar and
gall offered him on the cross, Origen referenced Psalm 68:22 as a prophecy that
accounted for his behavior.26
Therefore, where pagans criticized the Jesus movement by identifying it as a novel
sect, Christian apologists asserted that their faith consisted of a timely historical
manifestation of a timeless ancient tradition. Their messiah was the fulfillment of
ancient oracles; they, indeed, were heirs of an ancient tradition of sacred scripture and
religious piety. Maintaining that claim was, in the minds of most apologists, (Aristides
being the lone exception) critical. Occasionally, however, this strategy ran aground
when intellectual opponents observed errors in such prophetic citations. So, it caused
a tremor of no mild force when astute critics surveying the Christian scriptures (from
either Testament) located there some fault line, whether a lacuna of logic or an
infelicity of fact.
In specific instances of this sort, of course, editorial correction of such glaring
miscues in the transmission of the New Testament would have clearly buttressed the
case of the apologists. Could scribes have so aided the cause? Is there any evidence to
suggest that copyists of the Christian scriptures might have engaged in such scribal
intervention?
23
Ap. I.30, quoted from ANF, Vol. I, 172.

Ap. I.30. To be sure, this strategy of wringing christological content out of the content
of the Hebrew Bible was not unique to the apologists. Certainly to the extent that it is fair in
some measure to say that the Gospels were, in part, prophecy historicized, it is clear that the
evangelists themselves turned to the Old Testament for narrative content and interpretational
meaning. Still, it seems fair to describe as characteristic of apologists the way in which they drew
upon the Hebrew scriptures more to defend features of the faith against assault rather than
imply or inflect doctrinal meaning on the Jesus story.
25
Cels., III.2.
26
Cels. II.37.
24
65
VARIANT READINGS RELATED TO PROPHECY AND ANTIQUITY

In point of fact, scribal alteration of inaccuracies associated with prophecies is
widely represented in the textual tradition. The point is made conspicuous when such
improvements are observed in the very texts cited by pagan opponents in order to
provoke disdain for Christians and their sacred writings. Two incontrovertible
instances of this dynamic may be discerned in verses recited by the formidable
Christian nemesis, Porphyry.
Porphyry routinely adduced specific verses from Christian writings to document
his denunciation of the faith.27 For example, he contentiously reported that the oracle
ascribed to Isaiah in Mark 1:2 was in fact the product of a conflation between Isaiah
and Malachi (to be exact, Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3).28 Similarly, he flagged Matthew 13:35,
which wrongly assigns a passage from Psalm 78:2 to Isaiah.29 For the purposes of this
study what it noteworthy is this: both of these texts that were singled out by Porphyry
to demonstrate Christian ineptitude have located in their transcriptional histories
textual variants that signal a concern for factual coherence. It is my contention that
scribes altered these very verses to derail Porphyrys attack and to buttress the text
against future assaults of this kind. Their efforts may be discerned in the variant
readings that follow.
Consider the case of Mark 1:2. Variation in the manuscripts occurs with regard
to attribution of the prophetic citation, whether the text is said to be located in Isaiah
the prophet or more generally in the prophets. The disputed portion of the verse
reads, Kaqw_v ge/graptai e)n tw=| Hsai5
&
a| tw=| profh&th| [v.l. e)n toi=v
profh/taiv]....What follows is, in fact, a composite quotation consisting of material
from Malachi 3:1 and Exodus 23:20, as well as Isaiah 40:3. Textual critics generally
recognize the erroneous attribution to Isaiah as the original reading and the
correction to be the product of scribal amendment. The UBSGNT4 Committee in
their evaluation so assigned the Isaianic attribution an {A} rating.30 Commentators
routinely report the variant reading to be the result of someone who recognized the
defective attribution of a composite quotation to a single prophet and repaired it.31 M.J. Lagrange, for example, expresses confidently:
27
For a useful introduction to Porphyrys criticism of Christian sacred writings see Anthony
Meredith, Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians, ANRW II.23.2 (H. Temporani and W.
Haase, eds.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 1130, along with the discussion in Pierre de
Labriolle, La Raction paenne (Paris: LArtisan du Livre, 1934), especially 251256.
28
Fr. 5, 9. See A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian, 1130.
29
Fr. 10. See A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian, 1130.
30
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Second Edition;
Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994; First edition; London and New York: United Bible
Societies, 1971), 62.
31
See, for example, Morna Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Blacks New
Testament Commentary; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 35.
66

Il nest pas douteux que la leon dans le prophte Isae ne soit la leon originale,
corrige en dans les prophtes par certains mss. parce que, en ralit, les paroles
qui suivent sont empruntes pour moiti Malachie (III, 1) et Isae (XI, 3).32
What lingering puzzlement has remained for scholars regarding this text has
centered around the question of how the error first found its way into the Marcan
Gospel. The obvious answer is that the author of Mark simply erred, or that he
knowingly credited Isaiah with the saying because of the high regard in which he or his
audience held this particular prophet. In ancient times, Jerome, who once declared this
textual problem to be insoluble, at one time or another offered three different
solutions to the conundrum.33 The most commonly held view in antiquity was that
Mark had himself joined the two texts into one, which was the view held by Origen.34
Lagrange reports that some scholars who think this simply an error on the part of the
evangelist compare Marks confusion to a similar disorientation located in Irenaeus,
while others view Marks attribution as deliberate since it was only the Isaianic portion
of this amalgamated oracle on which his concerns rested.35 Joel Marcus acknowledges
the possibility of a Marcan error, but asserts that a greater likelihood is that Mark is
deliberately placing his narrative in an Isaian context. Isaiah, notes Marcus, is the only
Old Testament author mentioned by name in Marks Gospel, and his introduction
teems with allusions to Second Isaiah.36
Another suggestion popular with commentators is that the flaw in the autograph
may have resulted from the authors use of a collection of sayings from the Hebrew
Bible (testimonia) in which the mistaken attribution already lay.37 Hugh Anderson
building on the work of Krister Stendahl even goes so far as to propose that the
sayings collection in which this wrongly-attributed citation occurred could have been
formulated by the disciples of John the Baptizer.38
32
M.-J. LaGrange, vangile selon Saint Marc (Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1966), 3.
Jerome, Epistles, 57.9 (solvat hanc quaestiunculam imperita praesumptio, et ego erroris veniam
deprecabor). Cited and discussed by M.-J. LaGrange, vangile selon Saint Marc, 3.
34
Origen, Commentary on John, VI.24, which reads o$ti o9 Ma/rkov du/o profhtei/av e/n
diafo/roiv ei0rhme/nav to/poiv u9po_ du/o profhtw= n ei0v e$n suna/gwn pepoi/hken. Cited
by M.-J. LaGrange, vangile selon Saint Marc, 3.
35
M.-J. LaGrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc, 3.
36
Joel Marcus, Mark 18 (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 147.
37
See, for example, J. Marcus, Mark 18, 147; John Painter, Marks Gospel: Worlds in Conflict.
(London/New York: Routledge, 1997), 26; Larry Hurtado, Mark (Good News Commentary.
San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), 9.
38
Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (New Century Bible; Greenwood, SC: Attic Press,
1976), 69. See also Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament.
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 116 and 200. Stendahl suggests that the text as it appears in
Matthew 13:35 possesses a conflative texture characteristic of Jewish pesher, along the lines of
the Habakkuk commentary located among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
33
67
Sailing from the opposite shore, however, V. Taylor and A. E. J. Rawlinson

represent another group of critics who take the view that the words of Malachi 3:1 are
themselves the gloss, and that attribution of the quote to Isaiah was correct as it read
in the original.39 Hugh Anderson observes, in support of this position, what he
considers the otherwise puzzling omission of Malachi 3:1 in the parallel texts of
Matthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4.40
While this latter possibility is intriguing, the external evidence weighs heavily
against it. The vast majority of our most reliable witnesses (including B D L D Q
f1 33 565 700, and most of the Syriac tradition) as well as Irenaeus, Origen, and
Epiphanius attest that the original text of Mark attributed this verse to the prophet
Isaiah. Such an impressive array of external sources makes for a formidable deposition,
one difficult to ignore or refute. Moreover, to address Andersons point, omission of
Malachi 3:1 in the parallel texts of Matthew 3:3 and Luke 3:4 is not puzzling if one
proceeds from the premise (as most scholars do) that Matthew and Luke used Mark
as their exemplar. As scribes of Mark, each of them independently could have noticed
the conflated text and chosen to alleviate the problem by keeping the name of the
prophet who was arguably the most important for Christians and simply omitting
Malachi 3:1. This would, in effect, have produced the same result that some other later
copyist(s) achieved by omitting reference to a specific prophet but leaving intact the
textnamely, it would have generated a correct(ed) text.41
Why, though, did these scribes not follow the lead of Matthew and Luke in how
they handled the text? It is widely known that scribes often assimilated Mark to
Matthew. Why, if their interest was only to polish the text editorially, did these scribes
not imitate Matthew and Luke? Certainly, one could argue forcefully that the
transmission of sacred texts is by nature a conservative enterprise, and that scribes
were less inclined to omit material than they were to correct it. Although it is true that,
generally, the shorter text is considered original because of the scribal habit to edit
by expansion rather than abbreviation (e.g., explanation and correction rather than
deletion), this tendency in the textual tradition is not maintained without exception.42
39
V. Taylor, Mark, 153; J. E. H. Rawlinson, Mark, 7 f.

H. Anderson, Mark, 69.
41
Morna Hooker, however, argues that this textual problem is more easily explained on the
basis of Mark being written after Matthew and Luke. I fail to see the urgency or necessity of this
proposal. See Hooker, Mark, 35.
42
As James Royse makes clear in idem, Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text
of the New Testament, in Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes, eds. The Text of the New Testament
in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995)
23952. Drawing heavily on E. C. Colwell, Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of
P45, P66, P75, in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 9; Leiden:
Brill; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969) 10624, and confirmed by Peter M. Head,
Observations on Early Papyri of the Synoptic Gospels, Especially on the Scribal Habits, Bib
71 (1990) 24047, Royse asserts that the general tendency during the early period of textual
transmission was to omit (246).
40
68
Scribes could have chosen to delete Malachi 3:1 rather than erase the name of a wellknown prophetic authority. One could presumably argue that more would have been
gained by correcting the text by means of excision and keeping the reference to Isaiah.
Perhaps, but is there a more compelling explanation for why scribes revised the text
as they did?
Recall that Porphyry, as Julian would later, sought to discredit the writings of the
New Testament in part by highlighting inconsistencies that arose in the text. On the
basis of surviving fragments, much of his now lost fifteen-volume polemic Against the
Christians is thought to have consisted of reasoned criticism of the Christian scriptures.43 Porphyry in fact represented the contradictions and errors in these revered
writings as the natural product of rustic and unsophisticated followers of Jesus; their
collective intellectual and moral inadequacies made them incapable of producing
anything reliable or sound. On this basis Porphyry expected the scriptures to be
inherently flawed, and he set about the task of demonstrating that thesis for the
masses. Among his scriptural exposs, he is best known for demonstrating that the
book of Daniel issued not from the era of the Babylonian exile but from the
Maccabean period.44 Although this investigation involved an Old Testament text, it
seems evident that Porphyrys concern was to refute Christian chroniclers who
interpreted Daniels seventy weeks of years (Dan 9:24) according to a calculus that
arranged the birth of Christ to coincide with the reign of Caesar Augustus. As Anthony
Meredith so well summarizes:
The aim of Porphyrys treatment of the book of Daniel is, even in the biased
version that comes down to us from Jerome, fairly obvious. In the first place, by
proving that Daniel is a historical, pseudepigraphical work, he is able to destroy its
value as prophecy. Then he is also in a position to deny the ahistorical character
of the narrative, by rooting it firmly in history and by confirming its statements from
the writings of secular historians. Finally, by attacking the notion of the prophetic
value of Daniel he is able to weaken its value as an apologetic weapon in the hand
of Christian apologists.45
43
See, e.g., the discussion in P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 251268; W. H. C. Frend,
Prelude to the Great Persecution: The Propaganda War, JEH 38/1 (1987), 814; J. Bidez, Vie
de Porphyre (Hildesheim:Georg Olms, 1964), 7379; A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian,
112536; and J. Hargis, Against the Christians: The Rise of Early Anti-Christian Polemic (New York:
Peter Lang, 1999), 6390.
44
For more on Porphyrys treatment of Daniel see Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 266 68;
A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian, ANRW 23.2, 113233; P. M. Casey, Porphyry and the
Origin of the Book of Daniel, JTS n.s. 27, 1976, 1533.
45
A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian,1133.
69
Thus Porphyrys revised chronology threatened those Christian exegetes, such as Julius
Africanus, who summoned Daniel to construct their tendentious timetables and to
serve as an important prophetic witness to the messianic identity of Jesus.46
As an antagonist of Christianity, then, Porphyry directed his assault at the disciples
of Jesus and their scriptural foundation. He pored over their books and underscored
their mistakes. Errors and inconsistencies in the text were proof for him of the blatant
and dangerous lie that constituted, in his mind, the foundation of the Christian cult.
Under the perspicacious glare of Porphyry the sacred writings of believers fell
susceptible to detailed scrutiny, and the vulnerable underbelly of Christians showed
again, as it had similarly before under the criticism of Celsus. Where Origen could
effectively answer his criticism with factual correction or allegorical exposition,
Porphyry anticipated both responses. It was precisely their own data he was using
against them, and he refused to accept allegory as an answer. Therefore, where the text
was vulnerable to pagan critique so was the faith and so were the faithful. The text,
therefore, was a battlefield.
Among those texts he singled out as erroneous was Mark 1:2.47 Porphyry himself
read the evangelist and reproached him specifically for attributing to Isaiah alone a
citation that was his in part only, with the other part issuing from Malachi. In Against
the Christians, then, Porphyry was wielding this verse like an epee, attempting to pierce
the hearts of scriptural authority and the intellectual integrity of the evangelists.
Mindful of this, it seems noteworthy that some fastidious scribeswhose efforts are
represented by A W f 13 vgms syh and the Latin rendering of Irenaeusintentionally
replaced the erroneous attribution to Isaiah with a general and incontestable reference
to the prophets. Although scholarship has generally recognized that the modified
reading represents an attempt on the part of scribes to address the erroneous
attribution of the quotation as it stands to Isaiah, far too many commentators have
stopped short of offering sufficient explanation for what forces may have been at work
prompting the correction.48 The fact that this was, indeed, a text singled out by
Porphyry to ridicule the sobriety and propriety of the Christian scriptures suggests that
more than mere editorial felicity may have been at work here. It is difficult to restrain
the notion that scribes might have been reacting in direct response to the attacks
expressed by Porphyry; precisely the scribal activity reflected in the manuscript
tradition of Mark 1:2 signals a correction to this verse that would have been what was
necessary to deflect Porphyrys assault and to reclaim the text as another prophetic
46
See B. Croke, The Era of Porphyrys Anti-Christian Polemic, JRH 13/1 (1984), 6 for
the suggestion that Porphyry with his chronology of Daniel may have taken direct aim at the
timetable of Africanus.
47
A. Harnack, Frag. 9. See P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 252.
48
Vincent Taylor states matter-of-factly that the reading in the prophets is an attempt to
meet the difficulty that the first part of the quotation is not from Isaiah (Idem, Gospel According
to St. Mark, 153). C. S. Mann similarly states the obvious (Idem, Mark, 195). C. E. B. Cranfield
likewise asserts that the v. l. is no doubt an attempt to remove a difficulty (Idem, The Gospel
According to St. Mark, 38).
70
proof for demonstrating the identity of Christ and the anticipated rise of the faith. This
nimble but banal alteration would have hardly affected the meaning of the reading, yet
it would have effectively safeguarded the verse from the truculent scrutiny of
antagonists like the learned Neo-Platonist. In the words of M.-J. Lagrange, On a donc
voulu reparer lerreur reprochee lvangliste entre autres par Porphyre.49 In this
respect, the conspicuous repair of Mark 1:2 may well stand as a transparent instance
of scribal activity being shaped by apologetic concerns.
Porphyry noticed also a similarly fallacious attribution in Matthew 13:35, and once
more cited it as evidence for the ignorance of the evangelist.50 This, too, is a text
thatin a manner similar to the variant in Mark 1:2shows evidence of editorial
corruption. Due to certain complications inherent in this variant, however, the precise
nature of that corruption is more difficult to determine. Hence, it is necessary to seek
clarification with regards to the variant reading itself prior to considering whether its
alteration was due to the influence of apologetic interests.
The verse occurs in the context of the evangelist offering a prophetic explanation
for why Jesus taught the crowds exclusively in parables. It reads, This was to fulfill
what was spoken by the prophet (dia_ [v. l., insert or omit H
/ sai5ou] tou= profh&tou):
I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter what has been hidden since the
foundation of the world. Clearly, the variant reading inventoried in this verse resulted
from the activity of a scribe who either introduced into or excised from the text the
name Isaiah. Yet, the most glaring feature of the citation under review is that it does
not issue from Isaiah at all; rather, the words stem from Psalm 78:2 (Psalm 77, LXX).
In the Hebrew tradition, this psalm is identified as A Maskil of Asaph; and, in the
Septuagint (LXX), Asaph is labeled by the Chronicler (2 Chr 29:30) as tou= profh&tou.
Jerome indicates that all of the oldest codices ascribe the verse to Asaph, though
Metzger points out that no known extant witness to this text reads Asa&
/
f.51
On the basis of the weighty external support against the inclusion of H
/ sai5ou
an omission sustained by 1 B C D L W 0233 0242vid , the Majority text, some Old
Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versionscommentators frequently dismiss the variant
outright. Moreover, Metzger postulates that, in the instance that no name appeared in
the exemplar, assorted scribes working independently might have been constrained to
introduce into their copies the name of the best known prophet, a relatively common
practice attested to by Matthew 1:22, 2:5, 21:4, and Acts 7:48.52 This assertion reflects
a notion developed by Metzger more fully elsewhere in which he reached the
49
M.-J. LaGrange, vangile selon Saint Marc, 3, where LaGrange goes on to quote Porphyry:
locum istum impius ille Porphyrius...disputat et dicit: Evangelistae tam imperiti fuerent homines non solum in
saecularibus sed etiam in scripturis divinis ut testimonium quod alibi scriptum est, de alio ponerent propheta (Ad
Marcellam).
50
A. Harnack, Frag. 10 (=Jerome, Tract. Ps. 77). See A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian,
1130.
51
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 27.
52
71
conclusion that, as a general rule, early Christians felt a reluctance to leave unidentified
in the New Testament narratives persons who were mentioned but not named.53
Despite the deafening roar of this external testimony and transcriptional reasoning,
though, the UBS4 editorial committee awarded this omission only a {C} rating.54 Their
lack of conviction may have been warranted.
In reporting both sides of the argument, Metzger points out that in addition to the
sources that support reading through Isaiah the prophet (among them, the first hand
of Codex Sinaiticus, several important minuscules, one Ethiopic manuscript, and
copies of the Gospel known to Eusebius, Jerome, and Porphyry), transcriptional
probabilities weigh more heavily in favor of inclusion, since so obvious an error could
be construed as the more difficult reading. It is easy, he proposes, to anticipate the
correction of so obvious an error by copyists, and Metzger directs readers to the
previously discussed Mark 1:2 along with Matthew 27:9 as examples to support his
claim. He also reports that both Eusebius and Jerome knew of some manuscripts in
which the oracle cited in Matthew 13:35 was attributed to Isaiah, though in his edition
of the Vulgate, Jerome penned simply per prophetam (through the prophet).55 Metzger
here omits any consideration of intrinsic probabilities.
This is unfortunate, since examination of Matthews compositional style may well
provide important additional reasons for supporting the contention that H
/ sai5ou
issued from the author, and provide a reply to Metzgers thesis about naming the
nameless. It was precisely on this basis that F. J. A. Hort was led to favor inclusion
as the original reading. It is difficult not to think H
/ sai5ou genuine, he wrote,
arguing that there was in antiquity a strong temptation to omit erroneous references,
as evidenced again by Mt 27:9 and Mk 1:2. Thus he labeled the evidence in favor of the
claim that scribes frequently inserted the name of the most familiar prophet trifling.
In support of this assertion, he pointed out that in the five other places where the
true text has simply tou= profh&tou, the erroneous insertion of H
/ sai5ou is limited
to two instances, in each case to a single Latin manuscript.56
53
Bruce Metzger, Names for the Nameless in the New Testament, in Kyriakon: Festschrift
Johannes Quasten, Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungmann, eds. (Mnster:1970), 7999. Here
Metzger explores ancient Christian traditions that provided names for the magi, the seventy (or
was it seventy-two?) disciples, the rich man, the two thieves crucified with Jesus, and various
other women and men who are mentioned but left unnamed in the canonical sources. In his
description of sources that bear testimony to his thesis that tradition was reluctant to respect
the silence of the New Testament narratives (98), he also cautions that one must not imagine
that the movement was always from less to more....(99).
54
55
Bruce Metzger, St. Jeromes Explicit References to Variants Readings in Manuscripts
of the New Testament, in Text and Interpretation, edited by Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 181. This article features a brief but excellent
survey of the specific references to variant readings in the works of Jerome.
56
B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek.
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988 [Originally published in 1882]), II, 12.
72
Horts insights here prompt us to pursue a thorough examination of Matthews

use of this term, prophet, toward the aim of discerning whether or not the author
shows a tendency to employ that term with or without a proper name. Thirty-six times
in his Gospel the author uses the term prophet (profh&thv). Of these, thirteen are
plural grammatically and refer to the prophets in general, such as in the phrase, the
law and the prophets. Another five are generic in content, such as in the instance that
they took him [i.e., John] to be a prophet. Eighteen more times Matthew uses
profh&thv, and two-thirds (12) of those instances occur in association with a proper
name, such as by Jeremiah the prophet (2:17, 27:9), or spoken by Isaiah the
prophet (3:3, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17), or the sign of the prophet Jonah (12:39, 16:4), or
Daniel the prophet (24:15). John (11:9, 14:5, 21:26) and Jesus (21:11, 21:46) are also
directly specified as prophets by the author.
Review of the six remaining uses of profh&thv, those in which it stands alone
apart from the designation of a proper noun, educes several observations. One of
these instances occurs in Matthew 27:35, a verse argued by some textual scholars to
be an assimilation to John 19:24. If this judgment is correct, this verse would therefore
not serve as a representative of Matthean literary style.57 Another of these uses occurs
in Matthew 2:5. Although in this text the name of the cited prophet is left unexpressed,
the speakers here are Herods consultants and are, therefore, adversaries and not
proponents of Matthews cause. One would not necessarily expect Matthew to place
into the mouths of opponents the same level of knowledge one would or could expect
from a Christian character or narrative voice. Still, it should be noted that the textual
tradition does include witnesses, though they are admittedly unimpressive, that
incorporate a proper name into the text at this point. The correct reference of
Mixai&ou was added by 4 (a 13th century minuscule), syhmg (ms), and copbo ms, while Old
Latin Vercelliensis (a) attributes the prophecy to Isaiah, reading per Esiam prophetam
dicentem. Yet another reference, Matthew 21:14, cites a text that is a composite
quotation, specifically a conflation of Isaiah 62:11 and Zecharian 9:9. As we have seen
previously in reviewing the variant reading of Mark 1:2, one way to avoid problems in
attributing composite texts is simply not to specify any particular prophet by name. It
is quite possible that Matthew followed that logic here.
That leaves three final instances, including the variant presently under
consideration, in which Matthew appears to have used the term profh&thv in some
form of citation without any further identification (Mt 1:22, 2:15, 13:35). In all three
of these, however, it should be noted that there exists manuscript testimony that in
part attributes the citation to H
/ sai5ou. In Matthew 1:22, chiefly Western sources (D,
267, 954, 1582*vid, it, vgmss, sys.(c).h pal, arm, sams, Irlat pt, Diatessaron) are responsible for
the acknowledgment, while only Syriac Sinaiticus recognizes H
/ sai5ou in Matthew 2:15.
Still, in the former case, external evidence alone provides sufficient reason not to
dismiss offhandedly H
/ sai5ou as original.
57
73
With regard to intrinsic probabilities, then, it seems evident that the general and
fairly dominant pattern of Matthews literary style is to incorporate a prophets name
into his oracle formulas. Of the fifteen unqualified instances that the term profh&thv
is employed by Matthew in the singular and in reference to an individual prophet, only
twice apart from our text under discussionand, since one of those involves a
disputed reading, maybe only oncedoes the writer in quoting an oracle fail to credit
a prophet by name. In sum, Matthews dominant proclivity is to qualify the term
profh&thv with a proper noun. Intrinsic probabilities, it would seem, favor inclusion
as the original reading.
Further support for this conclusion may derive from consideration of
transcriptional probabilities with regard to the Syriac versional tradition.58 The first six
hundred years of Christianity witnessed the production of at least five separate
versions of Syriac scriptures, among these the earliest translations of the Gospels.59
Controversies rage among scholars who seek to understand this branch of New
Testament transmission, due in part to the wide variety of translations and revisions
that constitute the Syriac tradition, and in part to the unresolved question of their
mutual relationship.
Despite these unresolved questions in identifying the literary relationships among
these versional witnesses, however, their undisputed geographical relationship begs the
question of how these manuscripts relate to one another in terms of the scribal
transmission of the text. In particular, certain details that issue from the Syriac
witnesses in regards to prophetic citations plead for consideration. In at least three
instances (Mt 1:22, 2:15, 27:9) some portion at least of the Syriac tradition incorporates
a proper name alongside tou= profh&tou, and, in those cases where apparent scribal
58
For a thorough introduction of the Syriac versions of the New Testament see the classic
study, Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),
398.
59
Probably Tatians Diatessaron (ca. 170 C.E.), but some scholars argue that Old Syriac
translations of separate Gospels may have preceded Tatians harmony. Those witnesses available
to us today consist of the following: (1) Tatians Diatessaron, available, except for fragments,
only in secondary translations or in the commentary of Ephraem; (2) Two Old Syriac
manuscripts, the Curetonian Syriac (syc), assigned a date to the mid-fifth century, and Sinaitic
Syriac (sys), a palimpsest manuscript discovered by two Scottish sisters visiting the monastery
of St. Catherine believed produced in the late fourth century; (3) The Peshitta (syp), sometimes
referred to as the Syriac Vulgate, a carefully transcribed text believed to represent the New
Testament in use in Antioch during the fourth and fifth centuries; (4) the Philoxenian (syph),
and/or Harclean (syh/hmg) versions; and (5) the Palestinian Syriac (sypal), a distant cousin of these
other versions, preserved in transcripts marked by a dialect closer kin to Jewish Palestinian
Aramaic than classical Syriac and by lectionary and liturgical embellishments. For more on this
see Metzger, Early Versions, 3.
74
correction has been effected, theirs is usually the correct one.60 Upon close
examination, for example, one observes that the Syriac tradition appears divided over
the citation of Matthew 27:9. Among Syriac witnesses, only the text of the Harclean
Syriac (syh) incorrectly reports the firmly established reading, /Ieremi&ou; this same text,
however, in its marginal notes (syhmg, as well as minuscule 22) correctly credits
Zaxa&riou. Taking the other fork, Tatians Diatessaron, Sinaitic Syriac and the Peshitta
(Diatessarona, l, sys.p, along with F 33 a b boms) simply omit altogether reference to any
particular prophet. The fragmentary Curetonian Syriac has a lacuna here. This brief
examination suggests a pattern. In this particular instance (Mt 13:35) the bulk of the
Syriac tradition makes the effort either to correct the citation or to eliminate the error.
Elsewhere at least a portion of the Syriac witnesses testify to variants that emphasize
or accent the prophetic tradition, such as Matthew 16:4, which designates Jonah as a
prophet; or 21:4, in which the insertion of [Syriac], the Syriac equivalent to o#lon,
emphasizes how totally Jesus fulfills the prophets; or 27:35, where syh includes the
apparent assimilation to John 19:24. Although these data constitute only the
beginnings of a conclusive argumenta thoroughgoing study of the Syriac traditions
treatment of Matthew lies beyond the scope of this workthey direct us toward
locating within this versional tradition a pattern for how the scribes responsible for the
Syriac texts transmitted Matthean oracles. In their transcriptions of the Matthean text,
these scribes appear to demonstrate an acute awareness of the prophetic tradition.
When they are met with an erroneous citation, they almost always either correct the
attribution or omit the error. When, however, they are met with an oracle assigned
anonymously to tou= profh&tou, they usually insert a name, most often the correct
one.
To the extent this description accurately represents a practiced tendency on the
part of the Syriac scribal tradition, it provides information that may help us settle on
the reading of Matthew 13:35. If Syriac scribes had encountered in their exemplar the
phrase tou= profh&tou, the pattern would suggest that they would have made an effort
to insert an acknowledgment, and likely the correct one. On the other hand, if they
came across an error in attribution, it would be in keeping with the pattern if they
simply omitted the improper name. Since the oracle stems from a psalmist (Asaph?)
and not Isaiah, we would expect the Syriac tradition in this particular case to omit the
name. According to the textual apparatus, this is exactly what happens. This may well
serve as transcriptional support for reading H
/ sai5ou as original.
While the foregoing data may not produce absolute conclusions, it offers
reasonable if not strong evidence in favor of H
/ sai5ou as the original reading of
Matthew 13:35. Though the external evidence remains inconclusive, it leans more
heavily on the side of inclusion. Moreover, I have adduced intrinsic and tran-
60
One exception to this is an erroneous attribution to the prophet Isaiah reported in

Matthew 2:15 rendered in the Sinaitic Syriac. Here, though, it should be noted that this versional
witness is unique as the only manuscript that inserts, albeit an incorrect one, any name at all.
Even here, then, an apparent concern for prophetic citation remains consistent.
75
scriptional probabilities that offer additional reasons for favoring inclusion of the
proper name as original.
Presuming, then, that the original text of Matthew 13:35 included specific
reference to Isaiah, we are faced with the text-critical question of why scribes
intentionally altered the text. Of course, it is possible to attribute the omission to
manual error, but evidence of deliberate correction in the margins of Codex Sinaiticus
testifies that in at least some cases the omission was intentionally enforced. Perhaps
for some it is enough to posit that some scribes were compulsive in their efforts to
eliminate errors from the text, much in the way Metzger has already expressed. Yet,
here it seems that something more can be inferred from their activity. Porphyry, a
ferocious and formidable opponent of Christianity, had in his polemic writings against
the new faith singled out this text, along with Mark 1:2, as evidence against the
competence and integrity of the evangelists, and, by way of extension, the sacred
authority of their New Testament writings. To claim that the scribe responsible for
correcting the attribution did so out of compulsion implies that the scribe would have
been knowledgeable enough about the Hebrew scriptures to recognize the error. It is
equally tenable to reason that a scribe so knowledgeable could also have been similarly
informed or aware of the content of Porphyrys attacks. Moreover, a less attentive
scribe might have even been made aware of the error by such voiced criticism. In
either case, it is reasonable to posit apologetic interests as the momentum behind this
scribal alteration. Certainly the effect of the change served apologetic interests, as the
correction buttressed a vulnerable spot in the text that had already been exploited by
an antagonist.
Other variants additionally demonstrate a scribal interest in emphasizing and
supporting the prophetic foundation of Christianity. Consider, for example, the text
of Luke 9:54, which reads as follows:
i0do&ntev de\ oi9 maqhtai\ /Ia&kwbov kai\ I/ wa&nnhv ei]pan0 ku&rie, qe&leiv
pu=r katabh=nai a)po_ tou= ou)ranou= kai\ a)nalw= sai au)tou/v [v. l. w(v
kai\ /Hli/av e0poi/hsen].
ei1pwmen
And when the disciples James and John saw it, they said Lord, do you want us
to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them [v. l. as Elijah did]?
Repeating the Septuagint nearly verbatim, the verse recalls 2 Kings 1:10, 12, where
Elijah twice summons and receives a divine conflagration to consume a captain and
his company. Most commentators, except for J. M. Ross, identify the variant phrase,
w(v kai\ H
) li/av e0poi/hsen as a scribal gloss.61 Although the quality of witnesses that
testify to the phrase is high (A C D W Q Y f1.13 33 Maj it syp.h bopt), the early and
impressive witnesses (P45.75 B L C 579 700* 1241 lat sys.c sa bopt) that attest to them
not being part of the original text is even stronger. A. Plummer merely acknowledges
61
J. M. Ross, The Rejected Words in Luke 9:5456, ExpT 84 (197273), 8588.
76
insertion as the greater likelihood, while J. Fitzmyer explains the phrase as the product
of scribes who recognized the allusion and could not resist the impulse to demonstrate
their acumen.62 J. R. Harris offers the unique view that the gloss found its way into the
text under Marcionite influence. He argues that the added words fit precisely the
concern Marcion and his followers would have had, namely, to distinguish Jesus and
his Father from the God of the Old Testament who would have rained hostile fire in
response to the petition of Elijah.63 This argument suffers slightly, however, from the
view that Marcions prevailing pattern was to excise difficulties rather than refine them,
as he is known to have done, for example, with Luke 4:16.64
Another option for explaining the origin of the gloss is the influence of apologetic
interests. If, as it seems, the phrase is an embellishment, copyists by means of this
insertion establish much more directly a connection between Jesus and one of the
most charismatic of the Old Testament prophets. Now, to be sure, Elijah probably was
not a household name among pagans, although some intellectuals such as Porphyry
would have certainly known who he was. What the general populace did recognize,
howeverand certainly what the pagan elite respectedwas antiquity, a commodity
which for Christians could be obtained most affordably by borrowing from the
Hebrew scriptures. Also, as I have noted earlier, apologetic writings were intended, at
least in part, to preach to the choir, i.e., to undergird the faith of believers who were
in the minority, and whose trust in Jesus was either by hearsay, rhetoric, or accusation
regularly challenged. To place into the mouths of his followers the straightforward
declaration that Jesus could have done just as Elijah did would have both mollified
the violent character of the question ( Shall we bid fire come down...?) and
associated their near-contemporary Jesus with one of the most ancient prophets. The
copyists who embossed Luke 9:54 with the phrase, even as Elijah did, could
understandably have been inspired by apologetic interests.
Let us consider another probable scribal embellishment to Lukes gospel. Codex
Bezae and the Old Latin Vercelliensis (a) indicate that copyists interpolated the content
of Matthew 2:23 into Luke 2:39. The revamped Lucan text, kaqw_v e0rre&qh dia_ tou=
profh&tou o3ti Nazwrai=ov klhqh&setai, varies only slightly from the verse in
Matthew, o3pwv plhrwqh|= to_ r(hqe_n dia_ tw~n profhtw~n o3ti Nazwrai=ov
klhqh&setai. One thing is conspicuous here, however, namely that there appears to
be no antecedent in the Hebrew Bible with which this, the fifth of Matthews formula
quotations, corresponds. Many scholars suggest that Nazorean may be an allusion
to the righteous branch (Hebrew ) spoken of in Isaiah 11:1, while others point
62
A. Plummer, Luke (ICC 29; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 264. J. Fitzmyer, Luke IIX
(AB 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 830.
63
J. R. Harris, A Study of Codex Bezae (TS II.1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1891), 23233.
64
Where Jesus arrives at the synagogue in Nazareth and is called upon to read the prophets;
Harris himself makes note of this. Harris, Codex Bezae, 232.
77
to Judges 13:57 (LXX o3ti na&zir qeou~ e!stai).65 In either case, the connection
appears forced. So, what we have in this scribal interpolation is an instance where
scribes have followed Matthew, almost blindly it would seem, in the evangelists claim
that there was prophetic anticipation that the Messiah would at some point hail from
Nazareth. The scribes responsible for this embellishment were clearly less concerned
with tracking down source citations than with incorporating traditional evidence that
explained the location of Jesus boyhood home as yet another instance of prophetic
fulfillment. In this sense, for those scribes responsible for this amendment to Lukes
Gospel, this prophetic association may have also fulfilled an apologetic impulse.
Moreover, the similar pattern that occurs in these next two textual variants
appears to reflect closely themes and language that appear in the apologists, in
particular Justin Martyr. A number of witnesses (B C3 W f1.13 33 Maj q vgcl syh sa mae
boms) add to the text of Matthew 21:4, o3lon, thereby adding emphasis to the prophetic
interpretation of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem: all this happened in order that
the word of the prophet might be fulfilled.66 Similarly, into the text of Matthew 24:6
copyists inserted variously pa&nta or tau~ta or pa&nta tau~ta, so that emphasis was
given in Jesus visionary declaration about the end and the outbreak of violence that
all these things must rightfully transpire prior to the arrival of the consummation.
In both cases these scribal amendments accent the apologetic theme that everything
associated with the Jesus narrative was anticipated and presaged by divinely-inspired
prophets. This theme had been previously expressed with particular drama by Justin
when he declared, Now since we show that all those things (pa&nta) that have
happened had been foretold by the prophets (prokekhru&xqai dia_ tw~n profhtw~n)
before they happened, it must of necessity also be believed that those things which
were likewise foretold, but are yet to happen, shall with certainty come to pass.67 The
scribes who imported these terms of comprehensive scope into their texts echoed the
theme and words of Justin. Here, apologetic motivation appears as ready an
explanation for what drove these scribes to alter their exemplars as accident.
65
For reference to this and a fuller discussion of this verse see W. D. Davies and Dale C.
Allison, Matthew, Volume I (ICC 27; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 2745.
66
Commentators treating this verse devote more interest to the other variant reading in this
verse, one that involves the inclusion of a proper name. A few witnesses, the earliest being a few
of the Old Latin manuscripts, add before or after the prophet the name of either Isaiah or
Zechariah. The external evidence suggests that the insertion is secondary. Once again, as seen
earlier in our discussion of Mark 1:2, the oracle that follows in verse 5 is a conflate reading,
consisting of material from Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9. Other instances of scribes inserting
a prophets name can be located in Matthew 1:22 and 2:5, where in the latter instance Syriac and
Coptic versions correctly attribute the text to Micah, while Old Latin Vercelliensis (a)
erroneously credits Isaiah. See B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 89.
67
Ap. I.52. For the Greek critical edition see M. Marcovich, Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro
Christianius (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 104. Writings of Saint Justin Martyr (FC 6; trans.
Thomas Falls; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1948), 889
78
At both Matthew 16:4 and Luke 11:29, a set of manuscripts and versions very
similar to each other testify that scribes expanded the evangelists reference to the sign
of Jonah by identifying him as the prophet. Where Matthew 5:18 recounts Jesus
pronouncement that until heaven and earth pass away neither will one jot or tittle of
the law, some mainly Caesarean witnesses testify to the scribal addition of and the
prophets. One plausible explanation for this is that scribes could have simply imposed the customary phrase the law and the prophets onto their exemplar.
This examination of these several textual modifications all concern the
relationship between the Gospel narratives and the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew
Bible. Interpreting the birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus as
fulfillment of Jewish prophetic oracles emerged in early Christian writings as a central
and crucial argument, a trump card of sorts in the apologetic games. The textual
modifications recorded in these verses offer plausible evidenceand in places quite
concrete testimonythat scribes, at points, changed the text of the New Testament
intentionally, deliberately, and mindfully in tune with the dynamics of pagan polemic
and apologetic response. Concerned copyists changed their exemplars, not to the
extent that they composed a different tune, but in the sense that they transposed them
into an apologetic key.
EXCURSUS: THE TEMPORAL PRIORITY OF JESUS TO JOHN THE BAPTIZER
Scholars have long noted the embarrassment the earliest Christians suffered as a
result of Gospel accounts that Jesus submitted himself to the baptism of John, thereby
giving the appearance that he was subordinate to John.68 This problematic relationship
of the Nazarene to the Baptist did not manufacture grounds for an internecine
controversy only, however; pagan critics also seized upon this event to subjugate the
prominence of Jesus to John. Celsus serves as the prime example.69
The evangelists themselves, in part, anticipated this scandal. The Fourth Gospels
account of this story directly addresses the problem of the temporal priority of John.
Of course, this theme had already been developed quite thoroughly in the Prologue (Jn
1:118) by the time the testimony of John is deposed. To the question of how Jesus
and John related, the answer of this evangelist was firm: Jesus was superior to John in
every way, eternal in time as the pre-existent logos and unrivaled in identity as the holy
Lamb of God destined to take away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29). The Baptizer
68
See, e.g., the extremely lucid discussion of the criterion of embarrassment applied to the
portions of the Gospel narrative that pertain to John the Baptist and his relationship to Jesus
in John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical JesusVolume Two: Mentor, Message, and
Miracles (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 19233, esp. 2122 and 101105. Meiers
evaluation of the evidence results in his firm conviction, based in large measure on the criterion
of embarrassment, that the baptism of John can be taken as the firm historical starting point
for any treatment of Jesus public ministry (105).
69
Cels. II.4.
79
speaking in John 1:15 and again in 1:30 says, This is he of whom I said, After me
(o)pi/sw mou) comes a man who ranks before me (o4v e!mprosqe&n mou ge/gonen), for
he was before me (o3ti prw~to&v mou h]n). The two words used here, e!mprosqe&n and
prw~tov, frequently indicate primacy of origin in time and superiority in degree.70
It is interesting to note in this context the variant reading of John 1:27, in which
a third occurrence of this phrase, o$v e!mprosqe&n mou ge/gonen, is crowded into the
pericope. This insertion appears the product of scribal assimilation. The manuscript
testimony of P5.66.75 B C* L N* T Ws Y f1 33 579 as well as some Old Latin (b, l),
Syriac (Sinaitic and Curetonian) and Coptic versional witnesses over against that of A
C3 (Q) f 13 Maj lat sy(p).h bomss strongly suggests that the phrase in this verse was absent
in original John. While one could argue from the perspective of intrinsic
probabilities that the phrase corresponds favorably with the authors language and
themes, it becomes difficult to explain from the transcriptional point of view why a
scribe would have accidentally or deliberately omitted it. No clear problem of
homoeoarcton or other mechanical explanation for the omission is evident, although
the close proximity in the verse of several words beginning with omicron (o(, o(v, ou[
ou)k) could be pressed as a plausible explanation. The proposal of any purposeful
omission in 1:27 on the part of scribes becomes suspect since the exact phrase appears
without modification in 1:15 and 1:30. On the other hand, the decisions of the scribes
represented by these later Alexandrian, Caesarean, Western and Byzantine/Majority
witnesses to insert the phrase would serve the apologetic cause by enhancing further
the apologetic theme of the temporal priority of Jesus to John.
The textual tradition of the synoptic gospels also exhibits an effort on the part of
some scribes to address this issue. In Matthew 3:11, for example, John the Baptizer in
explaining himself and his baptism describes one that is coming after him (o)pi/sw
mou) who is mightier than he, whose sandals he is not worthy to unlace, who will
baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. In transmitting this account, however, a
small number of copyists, those represented by a d samss and Cyprian, eliminated the
phrase o)pi/sw mou. Certainly, one could account for this variant by positing the
mechanical omission of so short a phrase; other than the presence of several omicrons
in the verse, however, there is no obvious reason to suspect so. The influence of
harmonization to Luke 3:16, which lacks o)pi/sw mou entirely, is even less likely. Other
than the lacking phrase, the edited Matthean text does not otherwise follow Lukes
wording. Where Luke 3:16 reads ...e)gw_ me_n u3dati bapti/zw u(ma~v0 e!rxetai de\ o(
i0sxuro&tero&v mou..., the text of Matthew 3:11 appears as /Egw_ me_n u(ma~v bapti/zw
e0n u3dati ei0v meta&noian, o( de\ e!rxo&menov [v. l. o)pi/sw mou] i0sxuro&tero&v mou&
e0stin.... The differences in word order, use of a participle rather than the finite verb,
and other minor variations do not enhance the case that scribes harmonized Matthew
to Luke. In fact, manuscript evidence exists to support the claim that just the opposite
assimilation transpired. In rendering Luke 3:16, Codex Bezae (D) and one Old Latin
manuscript (l) substituted the exact words of Matthew (except for the disputed phrase),
70
J. Fitzmyer, Luke, 548, 15345.
80
o( de\ e!rxo&menov i0sxuro&tero&v mou. Therefore, neither mechanical error nor

harmonization offer a clear explanation behind the omission of o)pi/sw mou. Something more and something intentional appears to lie back of this change. Let us
consider whether the influence of apologetic interests might prove a better explanation
for the omission.
For scribes sensitive to the dispute regarding the relationship between John the
baptizer and Jesus, the prepositional phrase, o)pi/sw mou, could have been construed
as problematic on two counts. Temporally, the phrase after me refers to the future,
in the sense of hereafter or yet to come.71 As seen in the critique of Celsus, the
notion of Jesus entering history after John was an embarrassment to the Christian
cause.
In addition, the phrase can also be used in reference to ones disciples, as it is in
Matthew (4:19) when Jesus calls to Peter and Andrew, Come follow me (deu~te
o)pi/sw mou) and I will make you fishers of people. Scribes may have seen the
potential for interpreting the phrase in 3:11 to mean that John was indicating that it
would be one of his own disciples, albeit a more talented one, who would ultimately
administer a more spiritually potent form of his redemptive washing. With either or
both of these concerns in mind, scribes sensitive to the vulnerabilities of the text in
these regards may have chosen to navigate the hazard by simply eliminating it. The
omission of o)pi/sw mou would obviate the verbal cues that Jesus came after John,
either temporally or as his follower. An interesting constellation of variants to be
considered in this context is located at John 12:28 in the Johannine narrative that most
closely emulates the content of the Gethsemane prayer of the Synoptics. The pericope
begins with Jesus giving voice to his troubled soul, but abruptly changes. And what
shall I say, Father save me from this hour? No for this purpose I have come to this
hour. Father, glorify your name (sou to_ o!noma). At least, that is the text as rendered
by the UBS4/N-A27 Committee, earning from them a {B} rating.72 Codex Vaticanus
substitutes mou for sou, thus producing the petition, Father, glorify my name. A
number of later witnesses (L X f1.13 33 1071 1241) appear, according to Metzger, to be
influenced by the opening words of the High Priestly Prayer (Jn 17:1) and read,
glorify your Son. Codex Bezae also anticipates the High Priestly Prayer as it appears
to assimilate to the reading in 17:5; Jesus according to D prays, Father, glorify your
name with the glory that I had with you before the world came to be....
Such probing into this verse uncovers two relevant insights. One is the
recognition that an evolving high(er) christology is sometimes discernible in the labor
of the scribes. Of course, they were not responsible for introducing this doctrinal
feature into the High Priestly Prayer. Already strokes from the brush borne by the
Johannine artist had blotted out the synoptic image of a Jesus offering desperate
petitions to God at the eleventh hour and colored in the profile of a nimble, nimbused
71
See Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Revised by Sir
Henry Stuart Jones, et al.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 1239.
72
B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 23738.
81
incarnate Lord in complete command of the unfolding events.73 What Jesus was about
to do he would do willingly and knowledgeably, informed by his intimate union with
the divine author of this drama.
Apparently, the scribes built on this high christology as they blurred more and
more the lines between the Father and the Son, just as some of the apologists had
before them. Athenagoras, for example, compared the father-son relationship of
Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, to both of whom his apology is addressed, with that
of God the Father and his Son. He wrote:
May you find it possible to examine by your own efforts also the heavenly
kingdom; for as all things have been subjected to you, a father and a son, who have
received your kingdom from above (for the kings life is in Gods hand, as the
prophetic spirit says), so all things are subordinated to the one God and the Word
that issues from him whom we consider his inseparable Son.74
Both of the scribal changes, i.e., the shift of second and first person pronouns and the
substitution of Son for name,effectually served to elevate the status of Jesus.
Second, and more directly relevant to the present discussion, is the fact that the
expanded reading of Codex Bezae not only elevates the christological identity of Jesus
but also accents his temporal pre-existence. Codex D speaks of Jesus sharing a glory
with the Father prior to creation itself. Of course, once again, this notion is nothing
new in the Fourth Gospel; it was propagated from the outset of John in the prologue.
Here, though, in John 12:28, the declaration of high christology results from the labors
of scribes rather than of the evangelist. With great conviction, scribes portray Jesus as
glorifying his own name, being glorified as Gods own Son, and returning to the
experience of a glory divine and preexistent in character. Copyists issuing these
embellishments to the Fourth Gospel imposed the feature of preexistence upon Jesus
at a point in the narrative where the evangelist did not compose it. Clearly they are
doing theology here, implanting and cultivating the high christology of the Johannine
Gospel in beds the original gardener never sowed.
Yet, their theological embellishment also serves an apologetic purpose. More than
any other, the Fourth Gospel diminishes the role of John the Baptist in relation to
Jesus. In part, this is carried out by the proclamation of the preexistence of Jesus in the
prologue. A preexistent Christ is prior to John both temporally and ontologically. The
evangelist (or an early redactor) made him so in the prologue (1:18); later scribes have
made him so here (12:28). Jesus as the preexistent Son of the Father is temporally prior
73
The literature on the subject of John and the Synoptics is, of course, vast and steeped in
nuances, but the basic distinctions are generally apparent and familiar. For a clear and terse
treatment of what he calls in lieu of christology the presentation of Jesus in the Gospel of
John see D. Moody Smith, Johannine Christianity: Essays on Its Setting, Sources, and Theology
(Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1984), especially 175189.
74
Leg. 18.2. The English translation is from William Schoedel, ed. Athenagoras: Legatio and
De Resurrectione (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 367.
82
and ontologically superior to John the Baptistand, for that matter, even Moses,
Abraham, and Adam!
The variants I have adduced in this section served either to de-emphasize John
in relationship to Jesus or to highlight the pre-existence and temporal priority of Jesus
in such a way that claim of Christians to the sublime virtue of antiquity could be
enhanced. Once again, these variants mirror apologetic strategies, particularly as they
appeared, as indicated above, in Justin and Athenagoras. These variant readings point
once again to the activity of scribes who showed an active interest in apologetic
discourse by incorporating its strategies into their labors of transcription.
PAGAN CRITICISM OF INCONSISTENCY AND CHRISTIAN HARMONIZATION
Early Christians found their texts vulnerable to criticism. Attentive readers,
particularly those with an axe to grind, noted within the gospels glaring factual errors,
Old Testament citations wrongly attributed, and inconsistencies in the details reported
by the separate evangelical accounts. Of course, the distinctions in the four Gospels
had been observed by the church fathers, and, by some, even embraced. Irenaeus, for
example, early in the second century, lauded the tetrarchy of sacred writings as
reflective of a divine scheme, akin to that of the four corners of the earth or the four
winds.75 Short years later, however, Christian apologists were faced with challenges that
demanded more than a sublime metaphor for an adequate response. The
inconsistencies and lack of harmony readily apparent in a comparative reading of the
four canonical Gospels drew the attention of critics, for whom such asymmetry in the
particulars of the Jesus story represented a logical and factual inconsistency that
aroused historical suspicion. Celsus, as a prime example, was wont to seize upon
narrative infelicities and set them as stumbling blocks before the new religion. In
scathing tone, he wrote:
Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose
themselves and alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over,
and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism.76
Whether Celsus here was referring to discrepancies among the separate Gospels or
deliberate modifications imposed upon the text by scribes remains a puzzle to
scholars,77 but there is no mystery surrounding the conclusion that, for Celsus, the
75
Irenaeus, Ad. Haer. III.11.8, ANF, Vol. I, 428. For a brief discussion of Irenaeus on
scripture see J. Quasten, Patrology, Vol. I (Utrecht-Antwerp: Spectrum, 1950), 306308.
76
Origen, Cels. II.27. Cited here from Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1953), 90.
77
For discussion of this scholarly conundrum see H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 90,
n. 2, and Tjitze Baarda, DIAFWNIA-SUMFWNIA: Factors in the Harmonization of the
Gospels, Especially in the Diatesseron of Tatian, Gospel Traditions in the Second Century (ed.
William L. Petersen; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 133154. In contrast
83
gospel accounts enjoyed no privileged status under his unyielding investigation. Celsus
was ever ready to bring low the faith by highlighting its faults, an inconsistent text
being one of them.
Even more intimidating in this regard was Porphyry, labeled by Robert Wilken the
most learned critic of all.78 Porphyry routinely tried to discredit the Gospels by
searching out and reporting discrepancies and apparent contradictions in the text.79 In
addition, a host of the extracts attributed to Porphyry in the Apocriticus of Macarius
Magnes focus on this issue. We read, for example:
The evangelists were fiction writersnot observers or eyewitnesses to the life
of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events
of his suffering and crucifixion.80
Nor could Christian intellectuals like Origen ignore the facts. He framed it as a
critical problem to be resolved:
The truth of these matters must lie in that which is seen with the mind. If the
discrepancy between the Gospels is not solved, we must give up our trust in the
Gospels as being true and written by a divine spirit, or as records worthy of credence,
for both these characters are held to belong to these works.81
to those who argue that gospels harmonies were produced for reasons of cost or reduced size,
Baarda postulates that textual harmonization was most probably one of the attempts to
remove or neutralize the disagreements among the Gospels.
78
Robert L. Wilken, The Christians As the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1984), 126163.
79
A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian, 11191149.
80
Apocrit. II.1215, translated by R. Joseph Hoffmann, Porphyrys Against the Christians: The
Literary Remains (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1994), 32. Although in my judgment
Hoffmann dismisses too readily the challenges of T. D. Barnes (Porphyry Against the
Christians: Date and Attribution of Fragments, JTS n. s. 24 (1973), 42442) and too easily
follows Harnack in ascribing the objections cited and addressed by Macarius Magnes to
Porphyry himself, the content of the fragments, at least in part, does bear resemblance to
protests that can be traced to Porphyry. So, although I am not, with Hoffmann, content to
reference these as Porphyrys own, I do believe it is reasonable to consider that his influence
may be seen here, and, more importantly for this present work, to recognize these protests as
ones that were probably circulating in the era of the apologetic wars and scribal transmission
that constitutes the chronological and historical framework of this study. It is within the
parameters of this caveat, then, that I cite the work of Macarius Magnes.
81
Origen, Commentary on John X.2. Cited here from ANF, Volume X (ed. Alan Menzies;
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1951), 382.
84
Since so much was at stake, then, it is no wonder that this issue of inconsistency was
addressed frequently, if variously, by apologetic writers, including Justin Martyr,82
Tatian,83 Aristides,84 Theophilus of Antioch,85 and Origen.86
There can be no doubt that the text itself was a battlefield in the apologetic
scrimmages. Scrutinizing opponents highlighted variations in narrative detail as
evidence of either factual error, which brought suspicion upon the historical reliability
of the gospel accounts, or composed fiction, a charge that rendered the gospels void
of significance for enlightened thinking persons. Apologists responded to these threats
by either, like Origen, offering allegorical or clarifying explanation, or, in the manner
of Tatian, harmonizing accounts.87 The detectable volume of energy expended by the
apologists in executing these strategic responses demonstrates how seriously they
viewed these assaults on the text.
This concern, though, extended back even earlier. Even in the labors of Matthew
and Luke there can be recognized an obvious need for the sacred writings of their faith
to bear the marks of consistency, harmony, and factual felicity. In the prologue to his
Gospel, for example, Luke identified his composition as an orderly account
constructed out of transmitted eye witness accounts that Luke himself has traced from
the beginning and arranged systematically in writing for his excellency, Theophilus. In
so prefacing his narrative, Luke adopted, much as Josephus did before him, a standard
Hellenistic literary formula and exhibited his own free-flowing prose apart from any
source material.88
Use of these Hellenistic conventions strongly suggests that Luke intended his
composition for a predominantly Gentile audience, and one composed, at least in part,
of persons owning some degree of literary sophistication.89 H. J. Cadbury detected in
his reading of this prologue evidence of this apologetic concern for order and
82
Justin throughout his apologetic works is concerned with interpreting Christian doctrines
and scriptures in a way palatable to the philosophical mind, but for a direct instance of this see,
e.g., Dial. VIIX.
83
Tatian, Or. 25.2, who characterizes followers of Greek philosophy and mythology as
persons who have inherited contradictory (a)su/mfwnoi) teachings. See Mk. Whittaker, ed.,
Oratio, 4849.
84
Aristides, Ap. 16. See J. Rendel Harris, The Apology of Aristides. (TS I, edited by J. A.
Robinson; 2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893; repr., 1967), 5051 and 111.
85
Ad Auto. III.1. See in Grant, ed. Theophilus, 100101.
86
Throughout his reply to Celsus Origen is concerned with clarifying, elucidating,
interpreting, or otherwise defending Christian sacred writings. For especially bold instances see
Origen, Cels. II.2324, II.2627, III.12, V.5256.
87
Cf. Tjitze Baarda, DIAFWNIA, 13335.
88
For a thorough treatment of the Lucan prologue see J. Fitzmyer, Luke (IIX), 287 302.
89
For more on the intended readers for Lukes gospel see J. Fitzmyer, Luke (IIX), 5759,
and Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at LukeActs (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1972), esp. 4174.
85
accuracy.90 Not convinced, however, J. Fitzmyer finds this interpretation of the

prologue too confining, and argues that the assurance that Luke wishes to extend to
Theophilus is not in character apologetic but catechetical. In seeking to trace matters
to their beginning, Luke discloses the solidity of the early churchs catechetical
instruction.91 Fitzmyer goes on to explain the authors concern to craft his tale
systematically, including (unlike Mark) both an infancy story and a sequel to the
Jesus saga.
Whether or not he is correct, Fitzmyers reading of the prologue fails to dismiss
the possibility of an apologetic ambition on the part of the writer. As noted earlier, the
effort to clarify Christian teachings and systematize Christian narratives was itself a
concern of Christian apologists. Theophilus, in particular, took the offensive on this
point, ridiculing the pagan myths as inconsistent (a)su&mfona).92 Therefore, that
Fitzmyer wishes to call attention to the care of composition and depth of meaning
inherent in the prologue is to his credit; but there is no need to dispute Cadburys
judgment that apologetic interests are reflected therein.
Matthews edition of the gospel narrative, though addressed to a different
audience, also bears the marks of careful organization, structure, and clarification.93
Milton Brown describes the author of Matthew as a scribe (grammateu&v) with the
heart of a peacemaker (ei0rhnhpoio/v). By this he means, he goes about his scribal
duties, not as a mere collector of traditions or impartial redactor of ecclesiastical law,
but as a churchman sensitive to the varying winds of doctrine blowing among his
fellows and as one eager to reconcile the factious and to preserve the unity of the
church.94 Davies and Allison concur with the notion that the author of Matthew
sought a compromise of sorts, one that would uphold the traditional roots of his
90
H. J. Cadbury. The Making of LukeActs (London: SPCK, 1961), 344 f. Cadbury asserts
that Luke is addressing himself not so much to scientific scepticism, but to ignorance and
prejudice. Regarding specific terms in the preface, he explains that a)kribw~v implies exact
detail; its opposite is not falsehood but insufficient information. Also, a)sfa&leia for the author
has to do with meeting unfavorable judgments of Christianity. It appeals to the facts. Its
opposite is rumor and prejudice. (346)
91
Fitzmyer, Luke (IIX), 289290.
92
Ad Auto. III.3. See Grant, ed. Theophilus, 102103.
93
For a comprehensive survey of the various theories regarding the structure of Matthew
see Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. I, 5872. The proposals include that Matthew structured
his narrative (a) in five parts after the pattern of the Pentateuch (B. W. Bacon), (b) based on a
chiastic outline involving narrative and discourse (C. H. Lohr), (c) a three-fold structure around
the themes of person, proclamation and passion of Jesus (J. D. Kingsbury), and (d) in
accordance with the Jewish lectionary (M. D. Goulder). A minority of scholars urge to the
contrary that no fixed arrangement is to be inferred from Matthew (R. H. Gundry). Davies and
Allison express support for the theories of Bacon and Gundry.
94
Milton Brown, Matthew as EIRHNOPOIOS, in Studies in the History and Text of the New
Testament in honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, Ph. D, edited by Boyd Daniels and Jack Suggs (SD,
Volume XXIX; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), 3950.
86
religious heritage even as it embraced the tide of Greco-Roman influence that appeared
inevitable.95
Long before Davies and Allison, or Brown, Origen himself, in his exegesis of this
very term, described peacemakers as persons who demonstrate that that which
appears to others to be a conflict in the Scriptures is no conflict, and exhibits their
concord and peace....96 Origen sought to explain the seeming occurrence of
incongruence by drawing an analogy from music. To one ignorant in music, Origen
tutored, the dissimilar notes of a chord, because they do not each effect the same
sound, might appear inharmonious; similarly, those untrained in hearing the harmony
of God in the counterpoints of the Old and New Testaments or in the comparisons
of the Gospels with one another might puzzle over their seeming discord. The one
who would become instructed in the music of God, however, would come to know
that all the Scripture is the one perfect and harmonized instrument of God, which
from different sounds gives forth one saving voice to those willing to learn. 97
According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. VI:36), Origen wrote this in his Commentary on
Matthew close to the time he penned Contra Celsum. Both Crouzel and Trigg emphasize
that these works both belong to Caesarea and were products of his mature old age.98
This suggests that between the time Celsus published True Doctrine and Origen wrote
his rebuttal and Matthean commentary that there had developed a growing
consciousness of the discrepancies between the Gospels.99 In any event, it is clear from
his thoughtfully composed music analogy that Origen recognized the extent to which
even minor discrepancies could prove injurious to the Christian cause of survival and
propagation, especially when they were adduced by minds so perspicacious and
uncompromising as those of the pagan despisers of Christianity.
HARMONIZATION
Before proceeding to an examination of relevant variants, some additional
discussion of harmonization is in order. Scholars generally agree that the practices of
harmonization, assimilation, and conflation of readings were frequently practiced by
ancient copyists of the Gospels.100 Willem Wisselink identifies four kinds of
95
In their eyes, however, he failed. They argue that the Gentile form of Christianity became
dominant by the time of Ignatius of Antioch. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, Vol. III, 72223.
96
Origen, Commentary on Matthew, II.1, cited from ANF, Vol. X, 413.
97
Origen, Comm. Matt II.1, cited from ANF, Vol. X, 413.
98
H. Crouzel, Origen (trans. by A. S. Worrall; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 40, 43;
J. W. Trigg, Origen (London/New York: Routledge, 1998), 5261.
99
W. R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1974), 2829.
100
For example, see Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (3d ed.; New York: Oxford
University Press, 1992), 19798; Kurt Aland, The Text of the New Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995), 29091, 293. For a synopsis of the nuanced views of seventeen
scholars on the subject of assimilation see Willem F. Wisselink, Assimilation as a Criterion for
87
assimilation that occur in the Gospels: (1) mutually among the Gospels, (2) within a
single Gospel, (3) to the Septuagint, and (4) to an otherwise known wording.101
Scholars have frequently asserted that this tendency was inevitable, in part due to the
bent of the human mind for unity and the belief that scripture cannot contradict
itself.102 Unconscious familiarity with a favorite or dominant Gospel, usually Matthew,
is widely mentioned as another reason copyists assimilated a verse in one Gospel to
that of another. Substitution of the Matthean version of the Lords Prayer for the
shorter, more abrupt Lucan rendering serves many as an example.103 In the opinion of
C. S. C. Williams, The scribes familiar with parallel passages to the one that they were
copying were tempted, sometimes unconsciously but more often quite consciously, to
assimilate their text to its parallel.104
Several scholars, though, have cautioned appraisers of scribal activities to be wary
of such absolute statements. Nowhere have reasons for these reservations been better
demonstrated than in the search for possible tendencies in the Synoptic tradition
undertaken by E. P. Sanders.105 In his study, performed with an eye toward resolving
issues of priority related to the Synoptic problem, Sanders examined several possible
tendencies that were generally asserted to be commonly operative among scribes. He
tested these presumed categories in light of a cross section of Synoptic material and
its transmission in church fathers and apocryphal gospels. After an extensive collation
and evaluation of the data located in these sources, Sanders came to the conclusion
that few of these formerly functional tenets held water. Among the sacred cows he
slew were two that had become virtual axioms: the evidence failed to indicate that the
tradition either grew in length or became less Semitic. Although certain tendencies
surfaced as fairly common, such as the penchant for adding detail and for changing
indirect discourse into direct discourse, Sanders indicated that in large measure his
findings were negative. Hence, he summarized:
There are no hard and fast laws of the development of the Synoptic tradition.
On all counts the tradition developed in opposite directions. It became both longer
and shorter, both more and less detailed, and both more and less Semitic. Even the
Establishing the Text (Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989), 4361.

101
W. Wisselink, 54. Wisselink in this report builds on the work of Gordon Fee, Modern
Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem, in B. Orchard and T. Longstaff, eds., J. J.
Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 17761976 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1978), 16162.
102
E. L. Titus, The Motivation of Changes Made in the New Testament Text by Justin Martyr and
Clement of Alexandria: A Study in the Origin of New Testament Variation (Ph.D. diss., University of
Chicago, 1942), 18.
103
104
C. S. C. Williams, Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1951), 1.
105
E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969).
88

tendency to use direct discourse for indirect, which was uniform in the post-canonical
material which we studied, was not uniform in the Synoptics themselves. For this
reason, dogmatic statements that a certain characteristic proves a certain passage to be earlier than
another are never justified.106
Such a cognizance of the complexities involved in discerning the tendencies of

transmissional activity, with particular attention to harmonization, is also reflected in
the keen musings of E. C. Colwell. The most obvious improvement from a viewpoint
of a scribe, he explains, was to make the reading fit the context. Harmonization within
a book, or to the immediate context, was commonplace.107 Even when to do so led to
an error, scribes often made the reading fit into its context. Thus, he cautions, textual
scholars who choose the reading that best fits the context may well be choosing the
wrong reading. On the other hand, Colwell qualifies, to disregard the dominant pattern
of an authors style may also lead to error. Hence, intrinsic inclinations and
transcriptional probabilities may cancel each other out.108
James Royse on this topic offers his own caveat: Instead of saying that scribes
tend to do something, one should rather say that some scribes tend to do one thing,
and other scribes tend to do something else.109 Assimilations and harmonized
readings, then, must be evaluated as to their originality, like all other variant
readingsindividually, case by case and not in groups.
With those warnings duly noted, scholars do recognize that scribes did, on
occasion, consciously impose harmony on otherwise discordant passages. In this
regard the words of Tjitze Baarda are instructive.
Apart from an amount of unconscious assimilation by scribes who inadvertently
reproduced the text of the Gospel with which they were most familiar, and not the
text of the exemplar being copied, there are certainly deliberate alterations, omissions
or additions. Scribes consciously altered their manuscript, and made it conform to
that of the other Gospels, especially when these latter texts stood in high esteem in
their community because of their archaic character or supposed apostolic origin.110
106
E. P. Sanders, Tendencies, 272. His italics.

E. C. Colwell, Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P46, P75,106124.
108
Colwell, E. C. External Evidence and NT Textual Criticism, in Boyd L. Daniels and
M. Jack Suggs, eds. Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in honor of Kenneth Willis
Clark, Ph.D. (SD XXIX; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967), 4.
109
James R Royse, Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text, 23952. Royse,
e.g., cites his own studies of scribal habits in particular manuscriptsas well as work done by
E. C. Colwell, E. W. Tune, and Gnther Zuntz, among othersall of which challenge the
sweeping application of the canons of criticism regarding transcriptional probabilities. Although
the general sentiment among scholars is that the text expanded in transmission, analysis of
specific early mss (P45.46.47.66.72.75) suggests that the tendency of these copyists was to lose rather
than gain words and to harmonize to the immediate context more often than to parallel
accounts.
110
T. Baarda, DIAFWNIA, 138.
107
89
This process, he surmises, most likely began in the middle of the second century when
awareness of these discrepancies became a problem, though, he reminds us, the
impulse toward harmonization existed from the beginning of the process. The Gospels
themselves may rightly be described as products resulting from the labor of combining
sources: Mark of various oral traditions (at the very least), Matthew and Luke of Mark,
Q, M, and L, and the Fourth Gospel, apart from the sources we do not know, of the
signs source among others.111 Apocryphal gospels, too, it has been conjectured, were
the result of popular (in contrast to a carefully produced scholarly work)
harmonizations which served a devotional or evangelical purpose.112 William Petersen
points out that recent studies have disclosed that the Gospel according to the
Ebionites, the Gospel according to the Nazoraeans, and the Gospel according to the
Hebrews all feature textual affinity with Tatians Diatessaron.113 He also discusses the
limited but provocative evidence that the second-century apologists Justin and
Theophilus of Antioch may have used or been responsible for constructing gospel
harmonies.114
To be sure, many factors undoubtedly inspired scribes to engage in the process
of harmonization. One was geographical location. Studies have shown that the
distinctive scribal habits and purposes associated with certain geographical regions
shaped the contours of assimilation. Seemingly, e.g., Alexandrian scribes occupied
themselves differently than their counterparts in other regions. As Wisselink
generalizes:
Outside Egypt it was not philology that ruled, but the ecclesiastical or
theological interest. Outside Egypt, the issue was not the original text, but the text
regarded by the editor as the best text.115
Two other factors frequently postulated as reasons behind the design and
composition of full-scale Gospel harmonies are economics and practicality. One
smaller book, it is construed, rather than four larger ones would have cost less to
produce and been easier to transport. Baarda, though, questions the real relevance of
these practical matters. He argues that the standard harmony would have consisted of
roughly three-fourths of the four gospels, and that Tatians Diatessaron, he estimates,
111
T. Baarda, DIAFWNIA, 14041. On the sources of the Fourth Gospel see D. Moody
Smith, Johannine Christianity, 3993.
112
T. Baarda, DIAFWNIA,141. See also Raymond Brown, The Gospel of Peter and
Canonical Gospel Priority, NTS 33 (1986/1987), 321343.
113
William L. Petersen, Tatians Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History
in Scholarship (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 2931.
114
W. Petersen, Tatians Diatessaron, 279, 324.
115
W. Wisselink, 45.
90
would have contained an even greater measure of them. Therefore, he points out, not
a great deal would have been saved either in cost of production or convenience.116
Tendentious motivation undoubtedly constituted yet another factor. W. Petersen,
for example, points out that in comparison with the canonical Gospels, the Diatessaron
appears to have been redacted by a hand sympathetic to Encratism.117 T. Baarda
argues, though, that the most compelling motive that led Tatian to produce his
Diatessaron consisted of Tatians apologetic dedication to truth, unity, and historical
reliability. The arguments of Tatian, as well as those of Theophilus of Antioch, reflect
the principle that people whose chronological records were inconsistent
(a)suna&rthtov) could not be deemed reliable in reporting history. Descriptive error,
it was widely maintained by both sides, resulted from composing stories that were not
true (ta_ mh_ a)lhqh~). Christian writings to be reliable had to be void of factual error
and narrative inconsistency. Tatian, himself a Christian apologist, took on as a personal
crusade the challenge of reconciling the Gospels. His publication of the Diatessaron,
therefore, was motivated out of and was intended, at least in part, to serve an
apologetic purpose.
VARIANT READINGS RELATED TO ISSUES OF
TEXTUAL HARMONY AND CONSISTENCY
Examination of several variant readings in the canonical Gospels suggests that
some scribes may have enlisted in this cause. Evidence is indisputable that the text of
the New Testament was modified in transmission by scribes concerned with internal
consistency, factual agreement, and consonance among the gospels. An untold number
of variant readings bear the stamp of deliberate harmonization and factual correction.
Yet, textual scholars have been content generally to attribute these changes to
transcribers whose sole preoccupation was with the correction of a writers errors, and
not with the deflection of pundits arrows. Following are a representative sample of
scribal alterations that with some justification can be attributed to the apologetic
motives of textual agreement, factual accuracy, and logical consistency.
We begin with an appraisal of the particularly vexing textual variant reported in
the transmission of John 7:8. UBS4/NA27 reconstructs John 7:810 as follows:
8
u(mei=v a)na&bhte ei0v th_n e9orth&n0 e0gw_ ou0k [v.l., ou!pw] a)nabai/nw ei0v th_n
e9orth_n tau&thn o4ti e0mo_v kai/rov ou!pw peplh/rwtai. 9tau~ta de\ ei0pw_n au)to_v
e!meinen e0n th|= Galilai/a|. 10 9Wv de\ a)ne&bhsan oi9 a)delfoi\ au)tou~ ei0v th_n
e0orth/n, to&te kai\ au)to_v a)ne&bh ou) fanerw~v a)lla_ [w(v] e0n kruptw|~.118
116
W. Wisselink, 144.
W. Petersen, Tatians Diatessaron, 79.
118
N-A27, 26970.
117
91
Go to the feast yourselves; I am not [v.l., not yet] going up to this feast, for my time
has not yet fully come. So saying, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had
gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.
Not to go or Not yet to go? That is the question broached by the variant
reading located at John 7:8. Does Jesus flatly deny that he is going to Jerusalem, or
does he merely indicate a delay in his travels? Response to this question assumes some
urgency when the reader notices in verse 10 that Jesus does, in fact, travel in secret
to Jerusalem and arrives there shortly after his brothers. Of course, no problem exists
if the reading ou!pw is regarded as original, as is indicated by several of our most
reliable manuscripts; but if ou)k issued from the writers pen, the inconsistency between
his words and deeds in verses 8 and 10 makes Jesus vulnerable to accusations of deceit,
duplicity, or indecisiveness. Substituting ou!pw in place of ou)k in verse 8, of course,
resolves this problem, which is why the majority of scholars believe this to be the
product of a concerned scribe. Yet, not everyone concurs. The UBSGNT Committee,
in spite of Metzgers confident assertion that ou!pw was early on introduced by a
scribe seeking to ameliorate the conflict between verse 8 and 10, still assigns it only a
{C} rating.119 For the purposes of this study, a more thorough investigation into this
textual problem is called for. Let us begin with a review of the external evidence.
With regard to external evidence, Ernst Haenchen points out that ou!pw boasts
an impressive set of credentials, among them P66 P75 B L T W.120 Other apparatus in
addition marshal Q Y 070 0105 0250 f 1.13 Maj f g q syp.hsa ac pbo in support of ou!pw
as original.121 Clearly, ou!pw comes to dominate the tradition, but that does not
make it original. Supporting ou)k in its claim to priority are some similarly reliable
witnesses: D K 1241 lat sys.c bo. Here, as is so often the case, mainly Western
witnesses (reading ou)k) oppose the remaining lines of transmission. Still, the most
striking sources in support of ou!pw are the two ancient papyri, P66 and P75. The
weight of their testimony requires closer scrutiny.
P66 is generally ascribed a date around 200 C.E.; the editors of P75 place it between
175225 C.E.122 Both stand as ancient and important witnesses to the textual tradition.
Scholars some time ago became mindful of the unparalleled excellence of the
119

Ernst Haenchen, John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 721 (Translated by
Robert Funk; Hermeneia Series; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 7.
121
See N-A27, 269; also Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John, Volume 2. (New
York: Seabury Press, 1980), 185.
122
B. M. Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 4041. Metzger notes that at least one scholar
argues for an earlier dating of P66, placing it in the middle or even first half of the second
century. The reference is Herbert Hunger, Zur Datierung des Papyrus Bodmer II (P 66),
Anzieger der sterreicischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl., 1960, Nr. 4, 1233. Even an
earlier dating of this papyrus, however, would not exempt it from the criticism applied herein
and elsewhere.
120
92
testimony shared by the pair of manuscripts, P75 and Codex Vaticanus (B), and
frequently view it as representing the best type of third-century texts.123 Some scholars
even regard P75 as the de facto exemplar of Vaticanus.124 Perhaps, though, the P75Vaticanus line of tradition is best understood as the quintessential representative of
the Alexandrian text, which, it should be recalled, bears characteristics of a highly
polished, skillfully edited text.125 P66, similarly, has been described as the product of a
scriptorium, a composite recension manufactured by a careless scribe who was
evidently correcting his own work against at least two other manuscripts. This copyist
frequently abandoned Johannine style in an effort to impose on the text a more
vernacular Greek, thereby revealing at a very early period a scribal attitude that
removes difficulties and seeks the best sense of the text rather than showing a rigid
concern for the preservation of the original text.126 Therefore, both P66 and P75
report a text that is both very old, on the one hand, but that bears marks of intentional
shaping or polishing, on the other. Both papyri reflect the concern of their scribes to
produce an improved (in their view) text, not just preserve an original one. This
statement is not intended to diminish the importance of these papyri as witnesses. I
simply mean to specify that no pair of manuscripts, even ones as old and reliable as
these papyri, can be assumed to harbor the original text.
So we are left, as stated earlier, with a familiar plight: a Western reading standing
virtually alone against the rest of the corpus. Textual criticism, though, is not a
numbers game; variants must be evaluated on the basis of the quality of witnesses and
not their quantity. A Johannine reading that locates its lineage in Sinaiticus, Bezae, and
the Old Latin tradition bears a reasonable claim to antiquity, and a Western reading
that does not reflect expansion or embellishment must be taken particularly seriously.
In short, external evidence will not decide this case.
Let us now turn our attention to the internal evidence. In terms of transcriptional
probabilities, one obvious possibility is scribal error. Since the variation consists of
only two letters and the meaning of the words is so similar, a fallacious slip on the part
123
See, for example, C. L. Porter, Papyrus Bodmer XV (P 75) and the text of Codex
Vaticanus, JBL 81(1962), 36376; K. W. Clark, The Text of the Gospel of John in Third
Century Egypt, NovT 5 (1962) 1724; and Eldon J. Epp, The Papyrus Manuscripts of the
New Testament, in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status
Quaestionis, (ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eermans, 1995), 321.
124
Again, see C. L. Porter, Papyrus Bodmer XV (P 75) and the text of Codex Vaticanus,
374, where he notes that collation produces only the slightest and most insignificant variations
between P75 and Vaticanus. For him, the correlation between them proves sufficient to
demonstrate a strong affinity between the two manuscripts.
125
B. M. Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 215. But see also Carlo M. Martini, Is There
a Late Alexandrian Text of the Gospels? NTS 24 (1978), 28596, where he suggests that the
papyri of Didymus the Blind discovered at Toura in 1941 imply the existence of an early
Alexandrian text even older than the refined P75-Vaticanus type.
126
E. J. Epp, The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New Testament, 1516.
93
of the copyist could have produced either reading. To pursue this line of thought one
more step, however, since ou!pw appears in the second half of the verse,
homoeoarchton could easily account for the alteration of ou)k to ou!pw; the scribes
eye could have momentarily picked up the word in the next lineboth of which began
with OUand inserted it. Considering this variation in light of mechanical error, then,
suggests that modification in the opposite direction, ou!pw to ou)k, is the more difficult
accident to account for.
For many scholars, the argument hinges on the question of intrinsic probabilities.
Contrary to the judgment of the editors of UBSGNT, for example, R. H. Lightfoot
ascribes ou!pw to the hand of the evangelist, believing that this term conforms more
nearly to the authors clear statement that Jesus time has not yet come. Lightfoot,
though, realizes the necessity of defending his claim, since ou)k in his mind represents
the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior). In favor of his judgment he offers two
reasons. First, he explains that the reader should understand that Jesus in the text is
refusing to defer to the brothers who want him to go up to the feast. That is, Johns
portrayal of Jesus is that he will not acquiesce to public pressure. Only later, in
response to the will of his Father and not the wishes of his brothers will he go up
to Jerusalem. Secondly, Lightfoot argues that the writer of the Fourth Gospel employs
this verb a)nabai/nw not only to describe Jesus visiting Jerusalem but also ascending
and returning to the Father (cf. 3:13, 6:62, 20:17), an action associated in John directly
with the elevation of Jesus on the cross.127 Lightfoot concludes:
Possibly therefore, although using the word in this passage in its natural sense
so far as the Lord and his brethren at 7:8, 10 are concerned, at 7:8 St. John uses it,
in reference to the Lord, of his ascent to the Father through the cross: I go not up
at this feast. However strange this meaning of the word in the present context may
seem to us, it is probably not impossible for a writer like John.128
Expressing dissension, Rudolf Schnackenburg finds this approach untenable

because he locates elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (2:13, 5:1, 7:14) examples where the
evangelist uses a)nabai/nw to convey matter-of-factly the act of going up to
Jerusalem. Instead he insists, There is no room for a double meaning in this
instance.129
Haenchen in contrast to Schnackenburg joins Lightfoot in his view, but offers his
own reasons. He points out that the reading ou)k is plagued by an internal difficulty,
namely, that, since Jesus does not yet know the time when his Father will call upon
him to die, such a definitive pronouncement about his travel plans would oppose the
logic of his situation. Therefore, for Haenchen, just as John 7:6 reads, My hour has
127
R. H. Lightfoot. St. Johns Gospel: A Commentary (ed. C. F. Evans; Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1956), 175176.
128
R. H. Lightfoot, St. Johns Gospel, 176.
129
R. Schnackenburg, John, 143.
94
not yet (ou!pw) come, so must verse 8 have read originally, I am not yet (ou!pw)
going to the feast.130
Returning to the other side of this debate, C. K. Barrett on the basis of
transcriptional probabilities expresses certainty that ou!pw represents the modification,
one grounded in the efforts of early copyists to reconcile the superficial
contradiction between verse 8 and 10. Barrett believes the original reading ou)k
merely negates the request of his brothers that he go up to Jerusalem, since their
request is based on the desire that he manifest his works openly (e0n parrhsi/a|) and
show himself to the world (fane&rwson seauto_n tw|~ ko&smw|). The evangelist, to
Barretts mind, portrays a Jesus who refuses in the plainest terms to comply with
humanand unbelievingadvice, acting with complete freedom and independence
with regard to men, but in complete obedience to his Father.131 Alan Culpepper
sharpens this contrast, arguing that, as characters in the Fourth Gospel, the brothers
of Jesus are viewed contemptuously as unbelievers who will, in time, be rejected and
replaced by Jesus disciples.132 Several commentators suggest that not (ou)k) should
not have been taken as a problem in that there stands a well-defined distinction
between verses 8 and 10, namely that of performing publicly and doing things
privately. An advocate of this position, Charles Talbert outlines how the themes of
private (e0n kruptw|~) and public (fanerw~v) provide concentric and chiastic structure
patterns for John 7:114.133
In the mind of Raymond Brown, though, it is precisely the conspicuous problem
caused by the appearance of ou)k in verse 8 that serves the writers purpose. The fact
that Jesus later does precisely what he tells his brothers he is not going to do glares as
too blatant a contradiction to be anything but intentional. In his judgment, the
evangelist employs this literary inconsistency to call attention to the double-entendre
of his statement, what Brown terms a classic instance of the two levels of meaning
found in John. It is true that Jesus time has not come at this festival of Tabernacles;
his time (kairo&v) is reserved for a subsequent Passover.134 Similarly, Schnackenburg
locates a resolution to the intrinsic textual problem by shifting the focus of the
discussion away from the troublesome adverb and calling attention to a revealing
pronoun. His saying to this feast carries the underlying thought that he will be going
to Jerusalem to another feast: the next Passover, the Passover of his death. Informed
by this point of view, Schnackenburg declares that it does not really matter whether
130
E. Haenchen, John, 7.
C. K. Barrett. The Gospel According to St. John (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978),
312313.
132
R. Alan Culpepper. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983), 138139.
133
Charles H. Talbert. Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel
and the Johannine Epistles (New York: Crossroad, 1994), 143145.
134
Raymond Brown. The Gospel According to John (IXII) (AB 29; New York: Doubleday,
1964), 308.
131
95
one regards not or not yet as original. The emphasis of the verse is on Jesus not
(or not yet) going up to this particular feast.135
This survey of the various opinions held by different commentators demonstrates
a wide range of opinions and suggestions in attempting to resolve this vexing textcritical question, but in many respects they may be reduced to two basic
argumentsone concerned with external evidence, and the other with internal
probabilities. For the reasons noted above, the case can hardly be decided on the sole
basis of external evidence. Since for many the question hinges on intrinsic
probabilities, let us pursue this line of thought. In particular, let us examine how ou!pw
is generally employed by the writer of the Fourth Gospel.136
Apart from the v. l. under dispute, ou!pw is employed in the Fourth Gospel ten
times.137 Of those instances, a full half of them are associated with prophetic allusion
to the hour/time of Jesus, and two others are related to things that occur when his
hour does come (the giving of the Spirit and his ascension). Moreover, three of the
four times the evangelist places the term on the lips of Jesus it is in the declaration,
My hour/time has not yet come. Thus, the majority of the occurrences of ou!pw in
the Fourth Gospel refer to the hour of Jesus.
In terms of informing intrinsic probabilities, these data seem compelling. The
writer-editor of the Fourth Gospel appears to have been very deliberate in his use of
the term, ou!pw, incorporating it into his pronouncements about the hour of Jesus
almost as a formula. This much seems evident: the author of the Fourth Gospel
135
R. Schnackenburg, John, 141.

Attempting to locate characteristics of the author of the Fourth Gospel is akin to
chasing a phantom. Scholars have long noted that the Gospel is the product of a community
and a document that has evolved over time and experienced redaction. To speak, then, of an
author of the Fourth Gospel can appear either misleading or naive. I do not wish to be either,
though to do justice to these questions lies beyond the focus and scope of this present work.
For discussion of these issues see, for example, D. M. Smith, The Composition and Order of the
Fourth Gospel. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965, esp. 156 and 116249, and Alan
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 311. For the purposes of this project, in speaking here
of the author I am thinking mainly of the entity (described in Smith as the ecclesiastical
redactor) responsible for editing John into the form that came to be published and
transcribed.
137
They are as follows: 2:4, 3:24, 7:6, 7:8 (twice here; only the first instance is currently
under dispute), 7:30, 7:39, 8:20, 8:57, 11:30, 20:17. Four times it is placed directly on the lips of
Jesus. In three of those four instances he makes direct reference to his hour having not yet come
(2:4, 7:6, 7:8 [second occurrence in the verse]), and in the fourth instance (20:17) he tells Mary
he has not yet ascended to his Father, a statement also related to his divine timetable. Two other
times the term is used by the narrator to refer to the hour/time of Jesus (7:30, 8:20) and in yet
another instance, again assigned to the voice of the narrator, it reports that the Holy Spirit has
not yet been given (7:39), once again a use related to the divine timetable. The other applications
of this term are as follows: the report that John had not yet been cast into prison (3:24); someone
murmuring that Jesus was not yet fifty years old (8:57); and the narrative detail that Jesus had not
yet come into the village (11:30).
136
96
consistently used ou!pw whenever he wished to signal that the arrival of the kairo&v
was still pending; and, when the writer placed it on the lips of Jesus, the term is used
exclusively in the sense of a prophetic formula.
Unless, of course, the occurrence in John 7:8 (first occurrence) is taken to be
original. If this is so, e)gw_ ou!pw [rather than ou)k] a)nabai/nw ei0v th_n e)orth_n
tau&thn o4ti e)mo_v kairo&v ou!pw peplh&rwtai stands as the singular exception to
Johns otherwise careful and reserved use of this term. Presumably, one could argue
that it is the entire sentence that constitutes the prophetic formula, so that the
Johannine pattern actually consists of a doublet form of ou!pw. No such doublet
appears, however, in John 2:4 or John 20:17, to cite just two examples. Johns pattern
is that the prophetic formula punctuates the second half of a sentence; nowhere else
does ou!pw invade the prefacing remarks of Jesus.
So the question remains. Is this the only instance in Johns narrative where he
violates an otherwise carefully prescribed and consistent use of the term ou!pw? Is this
the conclusion that is best drawn from the data that has been presented? Or is it more
likely that ou!pw is not original in the first instance of 7:8, and that its entry into this
verse is the result of a scribes perspicacity rather than the authors lassitude? In my
judgment, the latter appears more likely. It is commonly acknowledged among scholars
that the writer of the Fourth Gospel narrates his version of the Jesus story according
to a chronology distinct from that of the Synoptics, often with a theological purpose
in mind. Multiple meanings are also standard literary devices employed by the
evangelist. Such observations indicate that the writer-redactor of the Fourth Gospel
is a narrative artist of no mean skill. With finesse and attention to detail, particularly
chronological detail, he imposes nuance, irony, and interpretive substance upon his
story. The data compiled for this discussion show the care with which the writer has
crafted the prophetic pronouncements about his hour/time that he attributes to Jesus.
There is no obvious reason to suggest that his literary skills suddenly and mysteriously
lapsed in 7:8.
On the other hand, ample reason to motivate an informed scribe to effect this
particular change in the text did exist in the form of a pagan intellectual who drew
attention to this verse to the detriment of the Jesus movement. Among the extant
fragments of his work that are most clearly attributable to Porphyry is one that called
attention to this very verse, and called into question the Jesus described there. Here
Porphyry noted that Jesus first denied that he would visit Jerusalem, but then
proceeded to arrive there (John 7:810).138 His words have survived in Jeromes Adv.
Pelag. (II.17), and read as follows:
138
A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian, 1134. Meredith explains that of the twenty- five
fragments (nos. 4872) collected by Harnack few can be attributed with certainty to Porphyry,
but are derived in actuality from the writings of Macarius Magnes. Thus, he explains, much of
the New Testament criticism attributed to Porphyry by P. Labriolle should not be considered.
The fragment regarding John 7:810 is a notable exception.
97
Jesus iturum se negavit, et fecit quod prius negaverat. Latrat Porphyrius; inconstantiae ac
mutationis accusat, nescius omnia scandala ad carnem esse referenda.139
Judging from these remarks, it is easily ascertained that Porphyrys text read ou)k
in verse 8. Moreover, he perceived between verses 8 and 10 either a breech of etiquette
or an act of erratic vacillation (inconstantiae ac mutationis). In either case, Jesus behavior
as recorded in this rendering of Johns narrative hardly reflected that of a holy figure
boldly and decisively executing a foreordained, divine plan. This passage, then, is a text
that was specifically enlisted by a pagan critic to denounce either the wavering
disposition of Jesus or the historical infelicities of the gospel accounts. In any event,
Porphyry adduced this text to the detriment of Christians.
The simple change of ou)k (not) to ou!pw (not yet), however, effectively quelled
any impression of inconsistent action on the part of Jesus as seen in the comparison
of verses 8 and 10. No longer, then, did the text present Jesus one moment asserting
his decision not to journey to Jerusalem, only to change his mind and go there; rather,
through the technology of scribal revision, Johns narrative stated without equivocation
that Jesus would not yet go up to Jerusalem along with his disciples, suggesting that he
would, as he did, find his way there later. That move would have rendered impotent
efforts on the part of pagan critics like Porphyry to adduce this text for antagonistic
purposes.
Certain logical inconsistencies were similarly assuaged. In response to Celsus
Origen himself voiced text-critical concern with the reading of Luke 23:45, in which
it is reported that when Jesus was crucified the sun became eclipsed
(e0klipo&ntov).140 He recognized both the lack of historical record for this happening
and the astronomical impossibility of such an event, since Passovers occur at full
moon and solar eclipses occur only at new moon. To connect the Passover death of
Jesus with a solar eclipse, then, fomented doubt. By way of defense, Origen insisted
that secret enemies of the church had introduced the notion of an eclipse into the text
to make it vulnerable to a show of reason.141 In other words, Origen himself offered
a text-critical explanation as an apologetic response to Celsus.
To whatever extent that defense proved effective, however, external evidence
weighs in favor of modification moving in the opposite direction. Where P75* C*vid
L 070 579 2542 syhmg testify to the primary reading (with P75c and B reporting the
variant spelling e0kleipo&ntov), A C3 (D) W Q Y f1.13 Maj lat sy along with Marcion
bear witness to the secondary reading in which the neutral verb grew dark
139
Jesus said he would not go up, and he did what he had previously denied. Porphyry
rants and accuses him of inconstancy and fickleness, not knowing that all scandals must be
imputed to the flesh.
140
Cels. II.33.
141
For several insightful discussions of this text and Origen's treatment of it see P.
Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 205207; E. L. Titus, The Motivation of Changes Made in the New
Testament Text by Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria: A Study in the Origins of New Testament
Variation; and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction, II, 70.
98
(e0skoti/sqh) was substituted for its problematic synonym. Still other scribes, as seen
in 33 and vgms, omitted the troublesome phrase altogether. So, although Origen
appears to have been incorrect as to which reading was original, it appears that his
argument caught the attention of some scribes who subsequently customized their
exemplars to complement his case.
It should be noted that the chronological and geographical spread of witnesses
provides us with a rare opportunity to venture a fairly precise provenance for this
reading. P75, generally regarded to have been produced between 175225 C.E.,
constitutes the earliest known copy of Lukes Gospel.142 It transmits the apologetically
troublesome reading, and serves as the only witness on either side of the textual
question that can with certainty be dated prior to Origens Contra Celsum. Also, of those
later witnesses that modify the reference to an eclipse, i.e., that bear witness to an
intentional alteration modification, some of the strongest among them (Q f1.13)
represent the so-called Caesarean text-type, the sort of text widely associated with
Origens move from Alexandria to Caesarea. Notice, too, that the modification follows
precisely the contours of Origens own text-critical arguments. Where he insisted that
his preferred reading was original, and that enemies had maliciously and with
forethought inserted eclipsed, the scribes attested here appear to have followed
Origens lead in replacing e0klipo&ntov with e0skoti/sqh. Therefore, not only do
apologetic interests seem to lie at the foundation of this textual alteration, but Origen
himself appears to rest at the heart of the matter. The evidence presented here invites
the conclusion that this variant reading found its way into the textual tradition after
175 C.E. (the earliest date for P75), and very likely in near approximation and close
association with the publication of Contra Celsum (ca. 244249 C.E.).
Several other variants betray the measure of discomfort some scribes felt when
they came upon similarly problematic or disparate details in the separate gospel
traditions. Routinely, though not systematically, some copyists assimilated or conflated
the details of one Gospel to another in order to ameliorate problems of factual
inconsistency or error. Pursuant to the question of whether Jesus was crucified
beginning at the sixth hour, as John reports, or the third hour, as per Marks account,
certain punctilious scribes eliminated the conflict by merely imposing agreement of one
gospel with the other. Editors of Codices Sinaiticus and Bezae, among others, acted
to assimilate the chronology of John 19:14 with that of Mark 15:25, while Codex
Koridethi (Q) and some of the Syriac tradition worked in reverse and revised Mark
15:25 to agree with John 19:14.
Another factual error appears in Mark 2:26 where Jesus is said to have recounted
Davids act of commandeering the bread of presence as occurring during the high
priesthood of Abiathar, despite the fact that 1 Sam 21:17 clearly states that Ahimelech
was high priest when this happened. The scribal tradition shows an awareness of and
an apparent concern for this factual error. Craig Evans, assuming Marcan priority,
adduces Matthew and Luke as the first Christian interpreters who worked to resolve
142
99
this problem. In their parallel accounts, Matt 12:4 and Lk 6:4, both evangelists manage
the error by simply removing the troublesome phrase altogether.143 Conforming to the
precedent established by the synoptic redactors of Mark, Codex Bezae, the Freer
manuscript, 1009, 1546*, and several of the Old Latin and Syriac versional witnesses
similarly omit the temporal phrase e0pi\ Abiaqa_
/
r a)rxiere/wv, and with it the
problem. Others, as Metzger explains, place an article into the verse in such a way that
allows one to understand that the event occurred in the time of Abiathar, but not
necessarily while he was high priest.144 Evans recalls that a few witnesses (D f goth)
read priest (i9ere/wv) instead of high priest (a)rxiere/wv), thereby bringing the
Marcan text into factual agreement with the Samuel narrative, since Abiathar, though
having not yet succeeded his father as high priest was already a priest. He further
reports that Chrysostom (c. 347407) would later deal with this inconsistency by
suggesting that the confusion of Ahimelech with Abiathar arose from the latter having
two names, while Jerome (c. 342420) would dismiss all such minor infelicities with
the pronouncement that apostles and evangelists frequently paraphrased scripture,
concerned with its meaning rather than its words.145
Two other instances of buttressing the text by way of correction or precision may
be seen in the textual tradition of Lukes Gospel. Codex Bezae at Luke 3:1 substitutes
procurator (e)pitropeu&ontov) for governor (h(gemoneu&ontov), thereby substituting the term that was in vogue during the second century,146 precisely the time
when many textual scholars believe the D-text was composed. This is an instance in
which accuracy appears to have given way to vernacular currency.
Since the verse begins with kai/, as do several others around it, the omission of
Luke 21:18 by syc and McionE can conceivably be attributed to homoeoarcton. It is
also possible to reason, however, especially in the case of the Curetonian Syriac, that
a meticulous scribe could not reconcile the promise that not one hair of your head
shall perish with the historical reality of martyrdom, and therefore deliberately
omitted the verse.
CONCLUSION
Examples of textual harmonization and assimilation dominate the scribal tradition.
An exhaustive catalogue and analysis of each such variant is beyond the scope and
143
Craig A. Evans, Patristic Interpretation of Mark 2:26 When Abiathar Was High
Priest, VC 40 (1986), 18386. This article is a concise but highly informative treatment of this
variant reading.
144
145
C. Evans, 18485.
146
According to Raymond Brown, the term used for Pilate by Tacitus in his Annals (15.44),
procurator (approximate Greek equivalent, e)pitro&pov), was in vogue during the second century.
Josephus also referred to Pilate as an e)pitro&pov. Brown argues that both Josephus and Tacitus
are using popular designations rather than technical terms. For his full discussion see R. Brown,
The Death of the Messiah, I (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 336338.
100
purpose of this volume. Nor is it necessary. There is no dispute among scholars that
the manual transmitters of the text of the canonical gospels imposed consensus on
their disparate voices through the medium of harmonization. It has not been the
purpose of this section to belabor the obvious.
What has not been broached in scholarly discussions with due frequency, though,
has been a deliberate and focused effort to establish or characterize precisely what
sorts of impetuses lay behind this scribal impulse. It has been, therefore, the purpose
of this chapter to demonstrate that such apparently simple editorial corrections may
reflect, at least in part, the motivation of apologetic interests. The subtle actions of
substituting or inserting the correct antecedent of a prophetic oracle or emphasizing
the preexistence of Jesus by deleting a prepositional phrase aided the apologetic
stratagem of alleging for Christianity a primeval origin. Moreover, assimilating one
gospel to another by incorporating phrases or verses and harmonizing inconsistencies
through the omission or alteration of details smoothed the way for apologetic
arguments by removing potential stumbling blocks from Christian sacred writings in
the process of copying them. In many cases these changes were brought to bear on the
very texts that pagan despisers initially cited in their polemic assaults against Christians.
It is not my contention that this was necessarily a systematic or even extensive effort.
The evidence appears too random and geographically scattered to support such a
thesis. What does appear quite reasonable, though, is to count among the conscious
and unconscious forces that motivated scribes to correct and harmonize their
exemplars a sensitivity to and concern for apologetic interests.
3
JESUS:
ACCORDING TO THE SCRIBES
Perceived through the eyes of a typical pagan, the Jesus portrayed in the canonical
Gospels deserved his fate. Pagans had recognized early on in their disputes with
devotees of the Jesus movement that the surest way to castigate Christianity was to
discredit its founder. Indeed, there could have hardly been a more compelling
testimony against Christianity than dissemination of the pagan portrayal of Jesus. The
stories repeated about him and the words placed on his lips represented him as the
misbegotten son of a harlot who grew up to become a political revolutionary, a
wonder-working magician, an apostate from a respected ancient religion who founded
a novel superstition, and a social miscreant who spread dissension and false hopes
wherever he went.
A variety of sources record this hostility expressed toward Jesus. Dishonorable
and inglorious was the assessment Justin projected onto his representative Jewish
antagonist, Trypho.1 Caecilius, the constructed voice of opposition in the Octavius of
Minucius Felix, objected to Christians for venerating an executed criminal and his
cross.2 Lucian, the famed satirist of the second century, described Jesus as a crucified
sophist who was executed for spawning a new religious movement that adjured denial
of the Greek gods.3
Among the extant writings of pagan critics of Christianity, however, distinction
for the first sustained literary assault upon the character of Jesus belongs to Celsus.4
Indeed, much of his polemic that Origen recalled in Contra Celsum was directed
Dial. XXXIII.
Oct. IX.34.
3
Lionel Casson, editor and translator. Selected Satires of Lucian. (New York: W. W. Norton,
1962), 369.
4
The volume of literature on the polemic of Celsus in True Doctrine and the reply of Origen
in Contra Celsum is immense. The classic introduction is located in Carl Andresen, Logos und
Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1955). Other
essential volumes are Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1953); Pierre de Labriolle, La Raction paenne: tude sur la polmique antichrtienne du Ier au VIe
Sicle (Paris: L'Artisan du Livre, 1948), esp. 111169; and Eugene Gallagher, Divine Man or
Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). For an overview of the life
and work of Origen see Henri Crouzel, Origen (Translated by A. S. Worrall; San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1989) and Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (London/New York: Routledge, 1998).
2
101
102
specifically at the Nazarene himself. Discharging salvoes of ad hominem arguments with

the fury of an artillery barrage, Celsus challenged the integrity of Jesus birth (I.28),
accused him of beguiling followers through sorcery and command of demons (I.6, 68),
and castigated him as an itinerant beggar (I.61) who collected round him ruffians of
the most sordid dispositions (I.62). Celsus further contended that Jesus was full of
conceit (I.28), an arrogant liar (II.7), profane and self-aggrandizing (II.7), the head of
a movement founded upon vulgarity and illiteracy (I.27), and a common carouser who
by example led astray his compatriots into impiety and wickedness (II.20). Jesus was
further portrayed as the author of sedition (VIII.14) and a wicked man possessed by
a demon (I.68). In his survey of the crucifixion, Celsus framed Jesus as one who was
arrested disgracefully and crucified as a criminal (II.31), who from the cross greedily
slurped a disgusting potion (II.37), and whose failure to laugh at his fate distanced him
from persons of genuine heroic virtue and disclosed his lack of character (II.33). In the
final analysis, the carpenter from Nazareth was merely a wicked sorcerer despised by
God (I.71). Christians worshiped a man who was wretched (VII.36).
Some seventy years after the publication of True Doctrine Ambrose petitioned his
champion, Origen, to author a response to the reproach of Celsus, the work we now
know as Contra Celsum. Over the years, some scholars have educed from this
observation the belief that True Doctrine had a long run of success as a major polemical
work against Christianity and proved a thorn in the flesh to the new movement. If, for
example, Joseph Trigg is correct that a renewed interest in True Doctrine presaged a
new hostility toward Christianity in Roman ruling circles, it would explain both the
urgency of Ambroses petition and the acerbic tone of Origens rhetoric.5
More recently, however, researchers have seriously questioned this view. A recent
article by Michael Frede serves to illustrate this avenue of thought.6 He doubts the
lingering impact of True Doctrine, as well as whether it ever enjoyed wide circulation or
represented a well-known challenge to Christianity. He points out that Origen had
apparently never even heard of Celsus before being approached by Ambrose, and
almost certainly did not possess a copy of his work until his patron presented it to him.
Moreover, he contends that True Doctrine most certainly would have been a dated and
inadequate work by the time Origen was commissioned to answer it. For Frede,
instead, the fact that an apology of this sort could be commissioned by a Christian
serves as a central clue to uncovering the mystery of the intended audience of Contra
Celsum. He maintains that Christian apologetic was generally written for Christians, just
as pagan criticism was penned by pagans for other pagans. Frede, therefore, incisively
characterizes Contra Celsum as responses not given in court to accusations not raised
in court.7
J. Trigg, Origen, 61.

Michael Frede, Origens Treatise Against Celsus, in M. Edwards, M. Goodman, and S.
Price, eds. Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1999), 13155.
7
M. Frede, Origens Treatise, 137.
6
JESUS: ACCORDING TO THE SCRIBES
103
Perhaps it is enough for our purposes to say this: what appears evident is that
something about work penned by Celsuseither its content or rhetorical
persuasivenessfomented for Ambrose the need or desire for a level of response that
was beyond his own talents to produce. Frede reasons that Ambroses petition may
have been born out of his concern that Christians might want to know how to answer
the objections to Christianity found in Celsus, and therefore concludes that Contra
Celsum was directed to Christians weak in faith.8 In this regard, also, it is natural to
wonder if it was Ambrose himself who was found stymied by Celsus arguments. At
any rate, that he required the genius of Origen on this matter intimates that True
Doctrine, dated and inadequate as it may have been, continued to have an impact of
some consequence those many decades later, even if that impact was only on Ambrose
or sibling believers who were found fragile in their faith.
As part of his apologetic refutation of True Doctrine, Origen naturally sought to
redeem Jesus from the character assassination portrayed there.9 In place of the wicked,
base, vain villain represented by Celsus, Origen described Jesus as a person of humble
and heroic character (I.2931). Jesus did not lead astray, but cured, converted, and
improved the souls of many (I.9). Origen contrasted him with the gods and heroes
who, as depicted by the Greek poets, indulged their wanton appetites in cavalier
fashion (I.17), and left no lasting positive influence on humankind (I.67). Jesus was not
the author of sedition, but the author of all peace (VIII.14) and the heir of a divine
kingdom (I.60). The execution of Jesus was not the inevitable consequence of criminal
behavior, but occurred to fulfill prophecy (II.37) and for the advantage of others
(II.6869). His death did indeed reflect his heroic nature, for there is no record of him
at his condemnation lamenting or uttering anything ignoble (II.34). The exemplary
character of Jesus, Origen maintained, could be demonstrated in how his name
continued to remove effectively mental distractions, drive out demons, and implant a
wonderful meekness and tranquility of character, and a love to mankind and a
gentleness in those who have accepted the gospel (I.67).
Origen thus serves to illustrate with what urgency and vigor apologists labored to
offer a portrait of Jesus contrary to that which was painted by most pagan critics.10
Peering across the apologetic corpus, one cannot fail to notice how much energy these
writers expended seeking to defend their founder and Lord. Often framed in the
M. Frede, Origens Treatise,15455.

Reference is made here to the divisions and phrases that appear in Henry Chadwicks
annotated translation of Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953).
10
Porphyry became in his later years a notable exception. By the time he wrote Philosophy
from Oracles, some twenty years after Against the Christians, he came to praise the noble character
of Jesus and even compared him with other divine men. Porphyrys ire against the Christians
was redirected at his followers, especially Peter and Paul, who he believed radically altered the
teachings of Jesus and spawned a movement of their own making built on a foundation of
deceit. See P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 25181; A. Meredith, Porphyry and Julian Against
the Christians, ANRW II.23.2, 111949; and W. H. C. Frend, Prelude to the Great
Persecution, JEH 38/1 (1987), 118, esp. 1012, 15.
9
104
reactionary rhetoric of via negativa, his proponents maintained that Jesus was neither a
common laborer nor a criminal malefactor. He was not a bastard, they insisted, but the
Son of God born of a virgin. He was neither a charlatan nor a sorcerer; clearly the
generous and good nature of his acts of power demonstrated their divine provenance.
To the charge of treason, they countered that Jesus was not a revolutionary nor did his
followers pose a threat to the empire; rather, in fact, the effectiveness of the persistent
prayers offered by believers on behalf of Rome and the emperor were in no small
measure responsible for their welfare and prosperity. Christian writers explained the
ridicule and shame of the cross in light of prophetic anticipation.11 Moreover, in the
words of Justin, Christians gathered for the purpose of fostering piety toward the end
of being found good citizens and keepers of the commandments.12 By distinguishing Jesus from such stock components of rhetorically imposed ignominy, then,
Christian apologists sought to deliver Jesus from the disenfranchised margins of
society and establish him within the mainstream of Roman society as a man of peace.
Their efforts were designed to make Jesus appear respectable, moral, and loyal to the
welfare of the state.
This was not always an easy case to make. After all, the New Testament supplied
opponents plenty of pellets for their potshots. In some cases no manipulation of the
tradition was required to compile evidence for the prosecution; unexaggerated features
of the gospels reported Jesus as the subject of numerous statements befitting an
insurrectionist. In several of these instances, however, it is noteworthy that within the
transmissional history of the text there appears among some scribes a discernible
concern or tendency to ameliorate the bellicose character of these actions or
pronouncements. Many of the features that fueled these dueling portraits of Jesus can
be seen in what follows to have gained the attention of certain copyists and to have
been subjected to the strokes of scribal activity. In short, one can trace in the variant
tradition an effort on the part of scribes to depict a Christ less vulnerable to stock
criticism and more palatable to the pagan populace.
VARIANT READINGS
Guardianship of this apologetic thrust and parry was taken up frequently by
transmitters of the textual tradition of the New Testament. Finding their way into
various copies of the scriptures were numerous variant readings that appear to reflect
this paradigmatic concern with the person and character of Jesus. Modifications of the
text occur that mirror the precise issues specifically raised in and tangentially related
11
As is so succinctly stated in the words of Andr Thayse: Les thologiens chrtiens ont
pens que le serviteur souffrant reprsentait prophtiquement le Christ. La rflexion du
prophte Isae sur la souffranace du juste est universelle. Elle inclut donc bien la souffrance du
Christ mais elle ne sy rduit pas. Idem, Matthieu: Lvangile Revisit (Brussells: ditions Racine,
1998), 228.
12
Ap. I.65.
105
to these disputations. Readings produced by scribes may be observed that ameliorate

perceptions of a Jesus who was angry or beside himself, who engaged in pedestrian
labor or the magical arts, whose legitimacy was questioned, and who was executed as
a radical revolutionary and criminal malefactor. It will be argued via the compilation
and analysis of the textual variants reported in the following pages that scribes
consciously modified texts related to the person and character of Jesus in a way that
mirrors apologetic efforts to defend Jesus against antagonistic character assassination,
on the one hand, and, on the other, to foster the cause of making him more tenable
to a pagan audience. For the sake of order, the variants in this unit will be classified
under the following headings, all of which represent pagan accusations directed toward
Jesus: The Folly of the Cross, The Author of This Sedition, A Carpenter by Trade, A
Magician and Deceiver of the People, and A Man of Profane Temperament.
THE FOLLY OF THE CROSS
Long before the earliest apologists began to craft defenses of the faith, Paul wrote
the Corinthians, We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and folly
to the Gentiles... (1 Cor 1:23). More than a century later, Christian apologists grappled
even more fiercely with their opponents over the offensive character of the untimely,
unseemly death of its founder. Jesus execution under Roman authority by means of
crucifixion, the torturous death reserved for only the most despicable of plaintiffs,
appeared to outsiders as proof of the treasonous and seditious character of this new
religion, and pagan critics seized on the scandal of the cross to denigrate the
movement. Lucian denigrated Christians for worshiping the man who was crucified
in Palestine.13 For Caecilius, Christianity consisted of the adoration of an executed
criminal and his cross.14 Keenly recognizing a rhetorical obligation to do so, Justin
provided in his First Apology a rationale for believing a crucified man to be the
unbegotten God (1.53), and, in Dialogue with Trypho, framed a response to the typical
Jewish expression of offense at the cross (59).15 Moreover, Justin argued that the
symbolic importance of the cross could be seen in the fact that it permeated creation,
from the mast of a ship to the human frame and even to the Roman standards.16 Paul
had been right. The cross was a folly and a stumbling block, a scandal, one that had to
be faced and dealt withsomehow.
In the previous chapter we noted the primary role prophecy played in the
apologetic tradition. By describing their religious movement as the current fulfillment
13
Lucian, Peregrinus, 11.

Oct. 8.
15
Here Trypho gives voice to what was clearly one of the most frequently adduced citations
underlying Jewish offense at the cross, namely reference to Deuteronomy 21:23, he who hangs
on a tree is accursed. Justin responds by arguing that prophetic predictions regarding the
sufferings of Jesus take precedence and thus override the curse associated with crucifixion.
16
Ap. I.55, 60.
14
106
of ancient prophecy, apologists claimed for their nascent movement the instant
credibility associated with antiquity. Attention to the subject of this chapter points us
to another reason apologists appealed to prophecy, namely, to redeem the character
of Jesus. Since their founder was viewed by outsiders as an executed troublemaker, and
since their celebration of the cross was central to their faith, Christians were obligated
to explain the cross and the execution of Jesus in a way that abated criticism. Their
stratagem for doing so, in large measure, was to pronounce the heinous and
dishonorable death of Jesus as a fulfillment of prophetic oracles. Featuring prominently, therefore, in the writings of the apologists were Old Testament citations such
as Psalm 22 and the Suffering Servant songs of Isaiah. Defenders of the faith
interpreted such texts as anticipating the particular events that surrounded the
Nazarenes crucifixion. The fate that befell Jesus, then, did not consist of Romans
meting out due justice, but of the erroneous executionor, for some like Melito of
Sardis, the manipulated murderof a holy innocent. In short, the crucifixion
constituted a travesty of justice. His death, however, though it was portrayed as the
product of false charges, deceit, and evil, did not come as a surprise. Indeed, part of
what legitimized the suffering death of Jesus was the belief that it was anticipated by
ancient and divinely inspired seers.
This defensive strategy may also be discerned in the textual tradition. A case in
point is located in Matthew 27:35, the central verse in Matthews passion narrative that
reports the actual crucifixion of Jesus. The undisputed text reads, Staurw&santev
de\ au)to\n diemeri/santo ta_ i9ma&tia au)tou~ ba&llontev klh~ron, And having
crucified him, they divided his garments by casting lots. The vast number and most
highly regarded of textual witnesses end the verse there. Some manuscripts (the
predominantly Western and Caesarean witnesses D Q 0250 f1.13 1424 it vgcl syh Eus),
though, associate this moment of the crucifixion with the Psalmist (22:8) by adding
these words, i3na plhrwqh~ to_ r(hqe_n u(po_ tou~ profh&tou0 Diemeri/santo ta_
i9ma&tia& mou e9autoi=v kai\ e0pi\ to_n i9matismo&n mou e!balon klh~ron, in order that
which was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled, They divided my garments
among themselves and for my clothing they cast lots.
With a high degree of certainty the UBSGNT Committee determined the longer
text to be secondary. Although, as Metzger points out, the passage could have fallen
out as a result of homoeoteuleton (klh~ron...klh~ron), due to the impressive array of
external witnesses (among them A B D L W G P 33 71 157 565 700 892 ff2 l vgmss
the Ethiopic and most of the Syriac mss) and the likelihood of scribal assimilation to
John 19:24 the committee felt their judgment merited an {A} rating.
Still, we are left with a deeper question, albeit one that poses no interest for most
commentators: Why did scribes choose to interject Johannine material at this point?
The prospect of apologetic motivation offers a plausible explanation for this. We have
already discussed how pagan writers adduced the crucifixion as evidence that Jesus
deserved to die. Where Jewish antagonists quoted Cursed is everyone who hangs on
a tree (Deut 21:23), it was widely known that Romans reserved crucifixion for only
the most heinous of crimes. Both Jews and Romans, then, viewed this form of death
as merited by the one who suffered it.
107
One of the most frequent means of response crafted by Christian apologists was
to identify passages from the Hebrew scriptures that appeared to coincide with events
from Jesus life (and death) story, and use them to argue that these writings
demonstrated a divinely inspired anticipation of Jesus and all that occurred during his
life. Jesus, as apologists interpreted events, was not the recipient of Roman justice; he
was a holy innocent whose very existence was foretold and whose symbolic death was
presaged. This point can be seen most clearly in Justin Martyr. Justin, in fact, recited
these very verses from and then the whole of Psalm 22 in his Dialogue with Trypho in
order to orient his disputant to a Christian understanding of the fate of Jesus and the
desire of his disciples to follow after him. The Martyr wrote:
The words of the Law, Cursed is everyone who hangeth on a tree, strengthen
our hope which is sustained by the Crucified Christ, not because God predicted what
would be done by all of you Jews, and others like you, who are not aware that was
He who was before all things....Now, you can clearly see that this has actually
happened. For in your synagogues you curse all those who through Him have
become Christians, and the Gentiles put into effect your curse by killing all those who
merely admit that they are Christians....17
Justin then continued with a series of proof-texts from the Hebrew Bible to support
his claims. He referenced Moses, Isaiah, and David as witnesses for his case, at which
point he stated:
And again, David, in his twenty-first Psalm, refers to His passion on the cross
in mystical parable: They have pierced my bones and feet. They have numbered all
My bones. And they have looked and stared upon Me. They parted my garments
amongst them, and upon my vesture they cast lots. For when they nailed Him to the
cross they did indeed pierce His hands and feet, and they who crucified Him divided
His garments among themselves, each casting lots for the garment he chose. You are
indeed blind when you deny that the above-quoted Psalm was spoken of Christ, for
you fail to see that no one among your people who was ever called King ever had his
hands and feet pierced while alive, and died by this mystery (that is, of the cross),
except this Jesus only.18
These lines demonstrate both the general strategy Justin employed in crafting his
defense as well as the specific attention he gave this verse (Ps 22:1819). The variant
17
Justin, Dial. 96 (selections). The translation is from Thomas B. Falls, Saint Justin Martyr
(FC 6; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press), 299.
18
Justin, Dial. 97. Again, the translation belongs to T. Falls, Saint Justin Martyr, 300301.
Justin quotes Psalm 22 in its entirety in Dial. 98. Justins identification of Psalm 22 as Psalm 21
is due to the dissonance of numbering that occurs, beginning with Psalm 10, between the
Hebrew Bible and the text of the Septuagint. See the edition of the Septuagint by L. C. L.
Breton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992 [originally published in
1851]), 703, n. b. and 709.
108
reading under consideration mirrors precisely this apologetic stratagem and the use of
this verse. Of course, it can be stated that the evangelists themselves crafted their
narratives with attention to the prophetic character of Hebrew writings, and that the
scribes might have merely been imitating them.19 Thus they inserted John 19:24 into
the Matthean narrative they were transcribing. Still, in this instance we have a case in
which the coincidence with Justins line of thought is virtually exact. Moreover, this is
arguably the most shameful moment in the narrative. As Davies and Allison point out,
the fact that his executioners, as was customary, are gambling over his garments means
that he is no longer wearing them; Jesus has been stripped naked.20 Therefore, it would
make sense that, of all the moments an apologetically-sensitive scribe might wish to
underscore the prophetic anticipation of the events being narrated, he would choose
the most embarrassing. There is reason to suspect that the scribes who interpolated the
words of Psalm 22:1819/John 19:24 into the text of Matthew 27:35 did so under the
influence of apologetic interests. It is even conceivable that they were familiar with this
very argument from Justin himself.
The following pair of variant readings also appear to be derived from a concern
commonly associated with apologetic writers. These modifications lead to the effect
of mollifying the perception of Jesus as a criminal revolutionary. The diametrically
opposite pattern of alteration, however, supports the contention that scribes more
likely acted spontaneously and pragmatically rather than with an overarching strategy
or anticipated pattern of modification.21
In its original phrasing, Luke 23:32 resounded as a potentially devastating text
for the reputation of Jesus and his followers. Scholars generally agree that, in this
instance, certain Alexandrian witnesses (P75, , B) harbor the original rendering of
the verse: H
! gonto de\ kai\ e3teroi kakou~rgoi du/o su_n au)tw|~ a)nairqh~nai, And
with him they also led away two other evildoers to be crucified (my italics). So written, the
verse implied that Jesus was one of three evildoers (kakou~rgoi) summarily executed
on the occasion. At first glance, it may seem difficult to imagine that the evangelist
could have missed the derisive insinuation of what he wrote. Fred Craddock is
probably correct, though, in his suggestion that the writer of Luke penned these words
19
For example, Warren Carter in his commentary offers a chart that outlines the parallels
between this section of Matthew and Psalm 22. Clearly, the evangelist has drawn on his
knowledge of the psalm in crafting his story. See idem, Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 213.
20
W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew III, 614.
21
For a thoroughgoing study on the identity and practices of ancient scribes see Kim
Haines-Eitzen, Guardian of Letters.
109
with Isaiah 53:1222 in mind.23 The Gospel writers did craft their narratives with
attention to the prophetic tradition, especially the late Isaian writings. It requires no
stretch of reason to imagine the author subtly but carefully intending to reckon Jesus
among the transgressors and thus fulfill the oracle.
Prophecy and politics are, however, seldom compatible bedfellows. Where to one
schooled in the poetry of the Hebrew prophets, reckoning Jesus among transgressors
sounded sublime, to one grounded in vernacular of pagan politics it sounded
subversive. As noted earlier, among the most serious and dangerous charges directed
at Jesus and early Christians were those that described them as workers of iniquity,
immorality, crime, and treason.
Some later scribes appear to have determined that the practical cost of this
prophetic fulfillment was more than the cause could bear. As a result of their efforts,
two forms of major variation found their way into the text, both of which effectively
subordinate the term kakou~rgoi. Most Greek manuscripts record a simple modification in the sequence of critical terms, so that the text reads ...e3teroi du/o
kakou~rgoi... (And with him they led away others, two evildoers, to be crucified.).24
Commentators widely agree that this variance in word order issues directly from an
apologetic impulse to nullify the implied identification of Jesus as an evildoer.25 The
other form of variation detected in the manuscripts resides in two Old Latin
manuscripts (c and e), Sinaitic Syriac and the Sahidic version; they resolve the issue by
simply eliminating the word e3teroi.26 In effect, this elimination transformed a
potentially controversial text into the bland report that, along with Jesus, two criminals
were also led away to be crucified. Here then, it appears, assimilation to the prophetic
tradition proved too costly to bear, and so Lukes fulfillment motif of being counted
among the transgressors was sacrificed in order to do away with the implication of
treason.
On the other hand, consider Mark 15:28. The text reads, kai\ e0plhrw&qh h9
gra&fh h9 legou~sa0 kai\ meta_ a)no&mwn e)logi/sqh, And so was fulfilled the
scripture which says, And he was counted among the lawless. These words echo the
content of Luke 22:37 and cite specifically the Septuagint reading of Isaiah 53:12, the
same text discussed immediately above. The entire verse is lacking in many of the best
22
Isaiah 53:12 in the RSV reads, Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was
numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the
transgressors (my italics).
23
Fred Craddock, Luke. (Interpretation Series; Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1990), 271. For
specific reference to Isaiah 53:12 in the text of the Gospels see Luke 22:37 and the textual
variant at Mark 15:28. This variant will be discussed presently.
24
These witnesses include A C D L W Q Y 070 0250 f1.13 Maj syh.
25
See for example B. Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 202; J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel
According to Luke, 2, 1499; A. Plummer, The Gospel According to Luke, 5th edition. (ICC;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 530.
26
B. Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 202.
110
manuscripts (including A B C D) and parts of the Old Latin, Syriac, and other
versional witnesses. Commentators recognize on the basis of both external witnesses
and intrinsic probabilities that this reading probably did not originate with Mark, but
rather that this entire verse represents a scribal interpolation.27
This appears to be another instance where labeling this a product of assimilation
seems incomplete. The scribe has imposed the content of Luke 22:37/Isaiah 53:12, but
he did not employ Lukes exact words, which read as follows:
le/nw ga_r u9mi=n o3ti tou~to to\ gegramme/non dei= telesqh~nai e0moi/ to&0 kai\
meta_ a)no&mwn e0logi/sqh0 kai\ ga_r to_ peri\ e0mou~ te/lov e!xei.
For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, And he was reckoned
with transgressors; for what is written about me has its fulfilment.
In fact, except for the quotation of Isaiah 53:12 (LXX), the vocabulary is quite
different. It is possible, therefore, that he is drawing from another source (an
apologist?) or from his own memory and independent logic. Moreover, the modified
reading serves, in essence, serves to explain the previous verse (15:27), And with him
they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. Although, in contrast
with the Lukan Christ, Marks Jesus is not depicted as one of three kakou~rgoi, the
soldiers do crucify him (staurou~sin) flanked by two robbers (du&o lh|sta&v). Thus,
the scene itself implies guilt by association. As noted earlier, crucifixion was a brutal
form of punishment, reserved for the most heinous of criminals, usually runaway
slaves, violent criminals, and political revolutionaries. For Jesus to be slain in such a
manner and in such company suggested that he deserved his fate.
Pagan critics frequently underscored this point. Celsus, for example, chided
Christians for submitting as the divine Logos not a person pure and holy but a man
who was arrested most disgracefully and crucified28 and, even more directly, where
Celsus claimed a correspondence between Jesus demise and his designation as a
robber.29 To add substance and credibility to his rebuttal of such claims, Origen
frequently summoned the prophetic tradition. Where Celsus mocked Jesus for slurping
greedily from the vinegar and gall offered him, for example, Origen retorted that he
did so in fulfillment of Psalm 68:22.30 Where Celsus depicted Jesus as a robber not
a god, Origen, employing the language of Isaiah 53:12, asserted that Gods being
numbered among the transgressors was somehow foretold.
It appears, then, that the scribe responsible for the interpolation of Mark 15:28
is imitating the apologetic strategy of defending Jesus by arguing from prophecy.
27
See, e.g., V. Taylor, Gospel According to St. Mark, 591, and C. S. Mann, Mark, 647, and
Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 2 vols. (Zrich: Benziger Verlag, 1979), II.318, n.
58.
28
Cels. II.31.
29
Cels. II.44.
30
Cels. II.37. See Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 96.
111
Whether he has modeled his technique after evangelists like Luke or apologists like
Origen is difficult to know. What the evidence does sufficiently demonstrate, however, is that this scribe, in the act of transcribing the report of the crucifixion, halted
at Marks straightforward account of Jesus death. Something more for him was
required here, some form of explanation; and so he inserted the standard prophetic
explanation for why Jesus was slain among transgressors. Events could have unfolded
no other way, he thereby explained, for only so could it fulfill Isaiahs oracle (53:12).
That is why he was reckoned among the lawless, numbered among the transgressors,
kai\ meta_ a)no&mwn e)logi/sqh.
Let us briefly summarize our findings. Each of these three texts shows evidence
of scribal tampering. Moreover, each of the modifications is bound by a common
motif: at a critical moment in the climax of the crucifixion narrative, scribes inserted
a prophetic explanation for the execution that was being related. Mark 15:28 consists
of a verse composed by scribal activity, framed precisely in accord with the common
apologetic counterpunch that strange events are sometimes best explained as prophetic
fulfillment. But not always. For the scribal modification of Luke 23:32 indicates that,
at least in the minds of some wary scribes, where the writer of Luke drafted a detail of
his tale in accord with this very same text (Isaiah 53:12), the implication that Jesus was
literally and not merely figuratively numbered among those evildoers posed too great
a threat to leave unattended. Here, discretion was the better part of valor. Jesus death
alongside two ruffians was mere coincidence, nothing more. Finally, in Matthew 27:35
scribes explained a different element of the storythe division of his garments among
the soldiersbut did so on the basis of prophetic fulfillment. Scribes in effecting these
alterations to the texts put an apologetic spin on these synoptic yarns.
THE AUTHOR OF THIS SEDITION
Celsus once labeled Jesus the author of this sedition.31 Elsewhere in Contra
Celsum, we find evidence of Celsus further characterizing him as wicked (I.71), a liar
(II.7), pestilent (II.29), and one who shouted threats (II.24, 76) and gathered round
himself the most sordid collection of sailors, tax collectors, and other wicked men
(I.62, II.46). Even earlier, Tacitus in his Annals had reported that Christians owed their
name to one who has been executed as a criminal.32 This reflected an attitude that was
common among some pagans that Jesus was a dangerous man who represented a
31
Cels. VIII.14. Tacitus similarly refers to Jesus as auctor nominus eius Christus in his Annals
(15.44). See the footnote immediately below.
32
Tacitus. Ann. 15.44, where he writes, Christus, the founder of the name had undergone
the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and the
pernicious superstition (exitabilis superstitio) was held in check for a moment only to break out
once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease (mali), but in the capital itself, where
all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. The text and translation
are located in John Jackson, trans. Tacitus: The Annals, Books XIII-XVI (LCL: Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1969), 2823.
112
threat to society. Apologists were keen therefore to show Jesus good side. Justin,
Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian all made clever use of
a standard homiletic device that developed among early Christians, playing off of the
pun between the Greek word xrhsto&v, good, and xristo&v, Christ.33 The texts
that follow suggest that scribes also reflected this concern, and refined their texts in
such a way as to enhance Jesuss reputation as a sober peacemaker, and not a
threatening figure of violence.
Such is the case in Matthew 10:34. Where the author repeated the apocalyptic
announcement of Jesus, I have not come to bring (balei=n) peace but rather a sword
(ma&xaira), the scribe responsible for the Curetonian Syriac substituted, I have come
to bring division of mind (diamerismo_n tw~n dia&noiwn). In the first place, it seems
likely that the scribe responsible for this change borrowed those of Luke 12:51, a)ll 0
h2 diamerismo&n, and assimilated them into his copy of Matthew. Still, that does not
completely explain the change. Commentators waffle on this verse. Albright and Mann
declare that Lukes version of the saying cannot be derived from any written source
shared with Matthew, and are driven to explain the origin of Matthew on the basis of
conjecture. Our suggestion is that originally the text ran: Do not think I have come
to impose peace on earth by force; I have come neither to impose peace, nor yet to
make war. But I have come to divide the just from the unjust...a man against his
father....34 Davies and Allison also voice difficulty with regard to this verse. They
reflect, Although one can hardly decide whether Matthew has increased the
parallelism (cf. 5.17) or whether Luke has changed the sentence structure, Lukes
division for sword does appear to be secondary.35 These remarks, however, fail to
deal with all the elements of textual variation. Not only did the scribe transpose Luke
into Matthew, he also introduced two new words into the text, thereby qualifying
diamerismo_n with tw~n dia&noiwn. This modification is unequivocally the product
of a thinking scribe. He is like a smith with a hammer who has beaten a sword into a
plowshare. He has first exchanged division for sword, but then has gone on to
define division as a thing of mind. To hear this scribe tell the story, while Jesus may
have announced that he did not come to bring peace, neither did he come to bring
either a sword or even division. He came to bring a division of mind, a
difference of opinion, a distinction in thought. Such things are not cause for
persecution or execution; they are the raw materials of philosophers. Much more than
assimilation is involved in this reading. The responsible scribe sought to transform
Jesus from a figure whose arrival bred contention to one whose presence induced
followers to pursue a deeper, more precise way of thinking. The copyist who
33
For the references and further discussion of use of the pun in Christian circles see S.
Benko, Pagan Criticism, 105758, where he states that this homiletic device (his phrase) had
been used among Christians from earliest times.
34
W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, 13031.
35
W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew II, 218.
113
manufactured this reading appears to have done so under the influence of apologetic
interests.
Jesus announcement in Matthew 9:13 might have sounded like music to the ears
of some, but to pagan despisers of the faith his declaration that he had come to call
not the righteous but sinners could have confirmed their suspicions that he was
mustering brigands for some unseemly purpose. Ancient sources reveal that such
rumors circulated among some outside the movement. S. Benko summarizes it well:
At the first trial of the Christians Pliny suspected in the movement conspiracy;
it was not superstition that made it punishable but the belief that it was a secret
gathering, dangerous for the peace and tranquility of society and not serving the
interests of the state, the utilitas publica.36
Indeed, Celsus propagated these rumors to drive a wedge of distinction between

Christians and other more palatable religious sects. Where the other mysteries
summoned to their ranks persons marked by purity and wisdom, he alleged, Christians
welcomed to their fold sinners.37 Compelled to reply to this point, Origen did not
deny that sinners were made privy to the Christian message, but what he vigorously
insisted was that the purpose that lay behind this invitation was to effect their healing.
Robbers assemble other robbers for the purpose of robbery; but Christians gather
thieves, bandits, and other despicables for the purpose of spiritual transformation. The
make-up of the assembly may appear the same, but the groups are distinguished by
their purpose. Thus Origen defended his cause.38
It is particularly interesting to compare the rhetorical strategies reflected here in
Contra Celsum with the textual variant located at Matthew 9:13. Major Caesarean and
Byzantine witnesses along with others report a clearly secondary reading that elaborates
and qualifies Jesus purpose statement. To the end of his mission statement that Jesus
had come to call not the righteous but sinners these witnesses add into repentance
(ei0v meta&noian). The change can easily be attributed to assimilation to Luke 5:32.39
Although comparison of the verses shows a great deal of difference in vocabulary and
verb tenses, the words of the interpolation correspond exactly to those of Luke.
Once again, however, we are met with what could be an incomplete explanation.
The significant change in meaning wrought by this modification should not be ignored.
Brief as this addendum is, it transforms the sentence and, in essence, defends the
actions of Jesus. It introduces onto an otherwise suspicious behavior a new and noble
motive. This ploy mirrors the methods we just outlined in the writings of the apologist,
Origen. Also in Justin, we see a preference in his First Apology for using the form of
36
S. Benko, Pagan Criticism, 107576. Cf. Pliny, Letters, 10.96.

Cels.III.59.
38
Cels. III.6061.
39
As it in fact is by W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew II, 105, n. 108.
37
114
this logion that includes the phrase into repentance.40 Of course, there is no way to
know if Justin is citing Luke 5:32 or an amended Matthew 9:13 (or is adapting the text
himself); but we can discern that Justin favored the form of the saying that offered a
palatable explanation for why Jesus called sinners. So it would seem did some scribes.
It appears that some apologetically-minded copyists of this Matthean verse detected
its troublesome ambiguity and sought to clarify its meaning by means of embellishment. These scribes chose in this instance to vary from their exemplar, andby merely
adding to the end of the pronouncement Lukes qualifying phrase ei0v metanoi/anto
deflect any implication that Jesus was in the business of marshaling miscreants. No
longer would a reader misunderstand him to be rallying the rabble rousers; he was
summoning sinners into repentance. Ministry not mayhem was his mission; piety not
politics was his purpose. Such was the way these scribes recast Matthews
storyapologetically.
Perhaps driven by similar concern, scribes inscribed into the text of Mark 13:33
another subtle expansion. Near the conclusion of the so-called little apocalypse,
attributed to Jesus is the abrupt apocalyptic command to his disciples to Watch, be alert
in the night; for you do not know the appointed time (my italics). It is easy to see how
outsiders could have understood these words militarily as Jesus ordering nocturnal
guard duty, and read into them a rebellious tone.41
By inserting just one more imperative (kai\ proseu&xesqe), however, copyists
replaced contentious discord with pious harmony. So in the manuscripts of , A, C,
L, W, Q, Y, f1.13, Maj., lat, sy, and co, we encounter the reading, Watch, be vigilant,
and pray.... While most commentators, sadly, are silent on this verse, except for
identifying the phrase as secondary, a few venture to explain this modification as an
adjustment related to Mark 14:38, Watch and pray, lest you come into temptation.42
Credible as this may appear on the surface, differences in vocabulary call this
conclusion into question. Although kai\ proseu&xesqe appears the same in both
verses, the words for Watch are different: grhgorei=te in 14:38, a)grupnei=te in
13:33. If this is assimilation, it is not very precise. Besides, the difference in context of
these two pericopes bears different implications for what the term Watch means. In
the Markan apocalypse (13:137), a)grupnei=te is a command to battle sleep and stand
vigil in the midst what Jesus has just described as tribulations, persecutions, and the
near advent of the Son of man. On the other hand, the term grhgorei=te occurs in
the setting of Jesus at prayer in Gethsemane (14:3242), and is spoken with specific
40
Ap. I.15.8.
Albrecht Oepke reports that the synonymous terms grhgorei=te and a)grupnei=te
can refer to watching over a city or keeping zealous watch over men or beasts. Idem, e0gei/rw,
in G. Kittel, ed., TWNT, 338.
42
See, e.g., A. Oepke, e0gei/rw, 338; B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 112. Among those
who offer nothing more than declaration that and pray is secondary (and some do not offer
even that) are E. Gould, V. Taylor, E. Schweizer, J. Gnilka, and B. Witherington. See the
bibliography for the references to their commentaries.
41
115
reference to guarding against temptation. Jesus tells his heavy-eyed followers to watch
and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the
flesh is weak. My point is that these two commands to watch sound very different
when read in context. One reads as a call to arms in the midst of physical tribulation,
while the other is a call to prayerful vigil in the face of spiritual temptation. I am not
arguing against any possible influence from Mark 14:38, though I am not convinced
of its direct bearing on Mark 13:33. What I am arguing is that there is sufficient reason
on the basis of content to locate the origin of this expansion in apologetic interests.
That is, how this modification alters the perception of this text fits the contours of
apologetic themes and patterns. We have seen already how important the motif of
prayer and piety was for the Christian apologists. They argued that the prayers of
Christians sustained the emperor and blessed the empire. So whether it was to soften
the harsh apocalyptic tone of the passage or to interject the motif of prayer so
prevalent in apologetic writings, certain copyists of Mark 13:33 added two words that
significantly altered the configuration of this verse. And pray, these scribes added,
thereby using the stylusthe way a carpenter applies sandpaper to uneven woodto
smooth the pugnacious edge from an ambiguous apocalyptic saying of Jesus and
transform it into a phrase that was an unambiguous plea for piety.
The rhetoric of prayer also found its way into yet another passage by means of the
deliberate strokes of copyists. The text of John 6:15 reads as follows:
0Ihsou~v ou]n gnou_v o3ti me/llousin e!rxesqai kai\ a(rpa&zein au)to_n i3na
poih&swsin basile/a a)nexw&rhsen [v.l. feu&gei] pa&lin ei0v to_ o!rov au)to_v
mo&nov [v.l. ka)kei= proshu&xeto].
Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make
him king, Jesus withdrew [fled] again to the mountain by himself [and he prayed].
Two interesting variant readings surface in this verse. The first requires some care in
determining the original text. This verse punctuates the Johannine version of the
feeding of the five thousand, the only miracle story reported by all four evangelists.
Having received their fill, the sated multitude determines that have witnessed a sign
(shmei=on, Jn 6:14) and give every indication that they are about to coronate Jesus. He
demurs, however, by retiring to the mountain to be alone. The textual tradition
presents us with two different verbs to describe his departure: a)nexw&rhsen and
feu&gei. Reporting for the UBSGNT committee, Metzger argues that the former is the
original reading.43 Their judgment, which elicited from the committee a {B} rating,
is based largely on the impressive external evidence, though the support for
feu&geithe first hand of Sinaiticus, much of the Old Latin tradition, and the
Curetonian Syriac (which is a conflated reading)is sound enough not to be
summarily dismissed. Metzger goes on to disclose, however, that the term
43
116
a)naxwre/w, although frequent in Matthew, occurs nowhere else in the Fourth

Gospel. Thus, based on this analysis of word usage, intrinsic probability would favor
feu&gei. Metzger also acknowledges that from the perspective of transcriptional
probabilities, scribes might have found flight unbecoming to Jesus, and changed it
accordingly. This thought gains credibility when one observes that Celsus questioned
the divine status of Jesus, in part, on the basis that no divine being would be driven to
flee capture.44 Jesus, scribes would have readers of the text understand unequivocally, is no coward.
The second variant consists of the addition of two words at the end of the verse
and can easily be recognized as secondary. Whether Jesus departed or fled, the parties
responsible for Codex Bezae (and sams) pressed upon their exemplars a further motive
for his disappearance. He went away to pray (ka)kei= proshu&xeto). This modification,
too, transforms the report of Jesus departure. His withdrawal both punctuates an
attempt to make him king, demonstrating that Jesus is not in the business to acquire
earthly power, and is configured as a devotional exercise. He does not seek an earthly
throne but a divine audience. He is a man of prayer. So the scribes responsible for
these changes portrayed Jesus.
In summary, random rumors and careful arguments crafted by opponents like
Celsus convinced many that Jesus rightly bore the mantle of the author of this
sedition. Apologists were driven to defend him against this charge. Whenever
possible, they sought to accent features of his story that resembled those of a man of
peace, and distance Jesus from words, gestures, or behaviors generally associated with
social miscreants, political revolutionaries, or even persons of the pedestrian classes.
It seems apparent from this group of readings we have just surveyed that some
of those scribes engaged in the work of transmitting the Gospels were shaped by the
rhetoric of the apologetic wars. For the most part, their efforts were anonymous and
subtle, much like an underground movement clandestinely assisting one side in a cause;
but in specific cases they boldly followed the footsteps of apologists in shaping the text
to the advantage of those defending Christ from criticism. For them, he was clearly no
author of sedition, but a man of piety and peace. The composite Jesus drawn by the
strokes of these scribes portrayed a man who did not seek earthly power for himself
or to undermine the mainstream culture. Those who appraised his work as that of a
brigand gathering confederates for mischief and mayhem needed to reexamine the
motives for why he gathered sinners into his presence. It was, they emphasized, for the
sole purpose of their repentance and moral transformation. Many of his sayings and
deeds these scribes qualified as acts of piety and devotional prayer. In each of these
instances scribal activity imposed on the text, usually with great finesse, a feature or
44
Cels. II.910. See the text of M. Borret, Contra Celse, 300, 308. In II.910, Celsus ridicules
Jesus for hiding himself (krupto/menov) and running away (diadidra&skwn), while at the
same time mocking his inability to flee (feu/gein) from capture. Tatian (Or. 8.2) also ridicules
so-called deities who flee (feu&gwn) the battlefield. See the text of M. Whittaker, Oratio,
1415.
117
qualification that moved the Jesus presented in the pericope out of the firing range of
his assailants. The labors observed here reflect apologetic concerns, or, perhaps more
accurately, the activity of concerned scribal apologists.
A CARPENTER BY TRADE
The perception that Christianity consisted of a sect constituted mainly by the

lower laboring classes greatly contributed to the sense of disdain felt for the Jesus
movement by its literate pagan critics. Caecilius, the characterized voice of paganism
in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, for example, described the adherents of this sect as
dregs of the populace.45 Fueling this perception in part may have been the report
that the founder of the movement had earned his living as a common woodworker.
While generations earlier the apostle Paul had taken pride in declaring that he had
chosen to earn his own living and thus forego his deserved right to live off the alms
of his congregations, by the time the apologists were interfacing with the prevailing
culture, the image of Jesus as a working carpenter had become for them something of
an embarrassment. Typical of the derision held in this regard by outsiders is the wellknown ridicule of Celsus:
And everywhere they speak in their writings of the tree of life and of resurrection of
the flesh by the treeI imagine because their master was nailed to a cross and was
a carpenter by trade. So that if he happened to be thrown off a cliff, or pushed into
a pit, or suffocated by strangling, or if he had been a cobbler or stonemason or
blacksmith, there would have been a cliff of life above the heavens, or a pit of
resurrection, or a rope of immortality, or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a holy
hide of leather. Would not an old woman who sings a story to lull a little child to
sleep have been ashamed to whisper tales such as these?46
From their creative efforts to downplay or dismiss it altogether, it is evident that some
apologetic writers encountered the perception that Jesus was a carpenter as degrading
and problematic. Justin dismissed the issue in his Dialogue with Trypho by explaining that
people presumed him to be a carpenter because Jesus customarily fashioned ploughs
and yokes as symbols to teach righteousness and active living.47 More pointedly,
Origens direct reply to Celsus implied that his opponent had misread the text.
Furthermore, Origen wrote, he did not observe that Jesus himself is not described
as a carpenter anywhere in the gospels accepted in the churches.48
45
Minucius Felix, Oct. VIII, cited from LCL, 3345.

Cels. VI.34, cited from Chadwick, 350.
47
Dial. 88, cited in ANCL, II, 212.
48
Cels. VI.36, cited from Chadwick, 352. The complete sentence in Greek reads, ou)damou~
tw~n e0n tai=v e0kklhsi/aiv ferome/nwn eu)aggeli/wn te/ktwn au)to_v o( /Ihsou~v
a)nage/raptai.
46
118
Origens rejoinder begs the question of how he understood Mark 6:3, a citation
which seems to contradict him. Bruce Metzger considers that either Origen did not
recall Mark 6:3 or that he was acquainted with this verse through copies that had
already been assimilated to Matthew.49 The clearly original text reported by all the
uncials and most other minuscules and versions reads, ou)x ou{tov e0stin o( te/ktwn
o( ui9o&v th~v Mari/av..., Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary...? It is unlikely
that Origen would have been unacquainted with the principal reading, particularly in
light of how Origen so carefully qualified his rebuttal. Jesus, he said, was not depicted
as a carpenter anywhere in the gospels accepted in the churches.50 The care with which he
qualified his statement implies that Origen knew of gospels or readings that did in fact
describe Jesus as a carpenter. Whether he had in mind apocryphal gospels not read
liturgically by the wider church, or whether this reference is to specific manuscripts or
textual traditions not preferred by Origen or his local church is difficult to know. What
is manifest here is that Origen knew of such readings that portrayed Jesus as a
carpenter by trade, but in the throes of Celsus assault he rhetorically dismissed them.
In light of Origens rebuttal, it is striking to examine the variant reading reported
by a few Caesarean witnesses, namely f 13,( 565), 700), along with P45, 33vid, (579, 2542),
it, vgmss, and bomss. These manuscripts modify the verse by inserting the phrase tou~
tekto&nov ui9o&v kai\ so that it reads, Is this not the son of the carpenter and Mary...?
Some scholars attribute this modification to the scribal practice of assimilation, since
the alteration emulates Matthew 13:55.51
Mere assimilation, though, does not seem to account adequately for the energies
shaping this change. Kim Haines-Eitzen keenly observes that harmonization does not
account for why Matthew and Luke changed their source nor for why some
transcribers of Mark 6:3 opted for the longer reading.52 Moreover, there is the fact that
the Palestinian Syriac alters the verse not by assimilation but by deletion, omitting o(
te/ktwn.53 This scribal change reflects no concern for harmonizing the verse to its
Matthean parallel. The alteration does, however, effectively assuage the tensions
49
B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 8889, n. 1.

Cels. VI.36.
51
See, e.g., the discussions in M.-J. Lagrange, vangile selon Saint Marc, 1489; V. Taylor,
Mark, 299300; and J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 23132. Gnilkas assessment is that
the reading the carpenter, the Son of Mary represents the original reading; the son of the
carpenter shows the influence of Matthew 13:55, and the reading the son of the carpenter and
of Mary is a conflate reading.
52
Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters, 117. See the rest of her careful treatment of this
variant reading, 11718, in which she, too, concludes that this text has been modified for
apologetic purposes. See also his treatment of Mark 6:3 as reflective of apologetic interests in
Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the Gospels at the End of the Second Century, in Codex Bezae:
Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994, ed. D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1996, 118.
53
B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 89. Cf. M.-J. Lagrange, vangile, 148, who identifies the
source of this change as the Harclean Syriac.
50
119
associated with Jesus being a carpenter. The question now posed by the text has merely
to do with his lineage, not his livelihood. Is this not the son of Mary...? Noteworthy
also is the fact that many of the witnesses attesting to the earlier modification reside
in the so-called Caesarean tradition, described by scholars as the text brought to
Caesarea from Egypt by Origen.54 Therefore, whether by coincidence or design, the
textual tradition most closely linked to Origen transmits an intentional modification
that effectively undermines Celsus and validates Origens apologetic argument against
him. The impetus behind the scribal modification of Mark 6:3, then, may be traced
beyond the generic tendency among copyists to assimilate the gospels to one another;
but it is highly likely that apologetic motivation directed the hands responsible for
altering this text.
A MAGICIAN AND A DECEIVER OF THE PEOPLE
Justin interpreted Isaiah 35:17 as a messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. It was

Christ, he asserted, who was the spring of living water springing forth in a thirsty land,
which he explained to be the land void of the knowledge of God, i.e., the land of the
Gentiles. Moreover, he explained that Jesus fulfilled the oracles of healing by restoring
those who were maimed, lame, deaf, and blind, causing them to leap and hear and see,
and even raising the dead. But, Justin declared regarding those who witnessed these
wonders, though they saw such works they asserted it was a magical art. For they
dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of the people.55
Among the personalities of antiquity, Jesus of Nazareth did not stand alone in
needing a defense against the calumny of being identified as a magician. Indeed, it
was a trump card frequently played by jilted lovers and losers in shrewd business
dealings. Apuleius, for one, was forced to acquit himself against some who believed
he had bewitched his wife and married her for her money.56 More than defamation,
however, such charges constituted damnation, for in the Roman Empire the practice
of magic fell under the rubric of a capital offense.57 The severity of the crime was
54
See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, xix. For a more thorough treatment of the Caesarean
text see idem, The Caesarean Text of the Gospels, JBL 64 (1945), 457489.
55
Dial. 69.
56
For the text in English, see Apuleius, The Defence of Apuleius: A Discourse on Magic,
in The Works of Apuleius (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1914), 247349; and for additional details
and further discussion, see the introduction to Apuleius, The Golden Ass (Translated by Jack
Lindsay; Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1962), especially pp. 811, and also
S. Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press,
1984), 104108.
57
The seriousness of the charge and the possible capital consequences attached to it may
be seen in Suetonius (Augustus 31.1), who reports that Augustus ordered two thousand magical
scrolls burned in the year 13 B.C.E. In a line from his defense in Sabratha, where Apuleius was
accused and tried as a magician, the accused speaks of defending himself against a capital charge:
But here, on the other hand, he who puts a magician, such as they speak of, on trial for his life, by
120
based not so much in contempt of fraud but in concern for social subversion.58 This
was, in part, because it was at the same time believed that magical practice was potent
and effective. Therefore, although it was among the more serious charges leveled
against Jesus, it was perhaps the one some of his followers were most reluctant to
deny. To be sure, then, this rhetoric comprised in the Greco-Roman world no small
slander. The label magician had the potential of being much more than a term of
abuse; it constituted a charge that, if confirmed, could earn the accused a painful
execution.
Many social scientists contend that the magic/miracle dichotomy is artificial,
erroneously based on the false presumption that there is an unequivocal difference
between magic and religion.59 They emphasize that the distinction between them is
based on perception rather than reality. Drawing on this social theory, David Aune
summarizes the relationship of magic and religion in this way:
(1) Magic and religion are so closely intertwined that it is virtually impossible to
regard them as discreet socio-cultural categories; (2) The structural-functional analysis
of magico-religious phenomena forbids a negative attitude toward magic; (3) Magic
is a phenomenon which exists only within the matrix of particular religious traditions;
magic is not a religion only in the sense that the species is not the genus. A particular
magical system coheres with a religious structure in the sense that it shares the
fundamental religious reality construction of the contextual religion; (4) Magic
appears to be as universal a feature of religion as deviant behavior is of human
societies.60
Any claim to an ancient distinction between manipulative magic and supplicative

religion, therefore, is contrived and erroneous. The label magicor magician was
grounded in perception more than substance. In the words of Susan Garrett, the
meaning of magician depends on culturally governed behavioral norms of the persons
involved, on their relative social locations, and on the complex particularities of the
given situation.61
This anthropologically informed understanding of magic guides Garretts analysis
of this topic with relation to the Gospels. She describes how highly vulnerable Jesus
and his followers were to charges of practicing magic. All four evangelists, she points
means of what attendants, what precautions, what guards, is he to ward off a destruction that
is as unforeseen as it is inevitable? See Apuleius, The Works of Apuleius, 273. H. D. Betz adds
the comment, Indeed, the first centuries of the Christian era saw many burnings of books,
often of magical books, and not a few burnings that included the magicians themselves. (Idem, Greek
Magical Papyri, xli). In both cases, my emphasis.
58
M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, 220.
59
See D. Aunes wonderfully thorough and lucid summary of the social theories underlying
this discussion, including the work of E. E. Evans-Pritchard, A. D. Nock, E. Durkheim, M.
Mauss, M. Douglas, and J. Z. Smith, in idem, Magic in Early Christianity, 15101516.
60
D. Aune, Magic in Early Christianity, 1516.
61
S. Garrett, Demise of the Devil, 4.
121
out, record Jesus self-defense against accusations that he was in league with the devil.
It was urgent, she writes,
that the Gospel writers and early Christian apologists show that Jesus and the church
leaders activities were not magical in character, especially since Christians practice
of casting out demons and healing the sick in the name of Jesuswho had been
crucified as a criminallooked very much like the feats of conventional magicians.62
Even the Gospels, as expressed in the views of P. Samain, D. Aune, and S. Garrett,
report polemic by his opponents that reflects a belief on their part that Jesus was a
magician.63 It should be noted as P. Samain has observed, however, that within the
Gospels, Jesus is never expressly accused of being a magician.64 He goes on to say,
though, that several features of the canonical miracle stories match details closely
associated with magical papyri and practice. For example, he argues that the charge of
being an imposter, such as one finds in Matthew 27:63, is in essence an accusation that
Jesus accomplished miracles by means of trickery or magic. He also adduces Mark
3:2230, a pericope in which Jesus opponents avow that he casts out demons by the
power of Beelzebul, as a text that implies that Jesus was a magician.65 S. Benko
observes that even reports of Christians singing hymns could have been perceived by
Roman ears as reciting a spell.66
To be labeled as a magician, then, was both to be marked with disgrace and
recognized as an outlaw. Yet, where his critics accused Jesus of being a magician, many
of his supporters admired him as one.67 Thus is the scholarly reflection upon magic in
antiquity marked with ironies.68 On the one hand, magic was deemed a crime against
society and frequently viewed with disdain by the educated population. The irregularity
of its practices stood in sharp contrast to the fastidiously structured and precisely
regular observance of religious rituals, as did its popularity among the lower classes
stand in relief to its disdain by the upper classes. On the other hand, magic pervaded
first century Greco-Roman cults, Judaism, and Christianity, and only increased in
62
S. Garrett, Demise of the Devil, 3.

P. Samain, LAccusation de magie contre le Christ dans les vangiles, Ephemerides
Theological Lovianienses, 15 (1938), 44990; and David E. Aune, Magic in Early Christianity,
15071557, esp. 154042.
64
Yet, as pointed out in conversation by Moody Smith, Jesus is openly accused of having
a demon (Jn 8:48ff.).
65
P. Samain, LAccusation de magie, 45664 and 46669.
66
S. Benko, Pagan Criticism,1076; cf. Twelve Tables 8.1.
67
M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, 94.
68
Scholars have focused great attention upon this matter of the relationship of magic in
Greco-Roman antiquity to early Christianity. Among the featured literature informing this
project are the following sources: Hans Dieter Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri; David E. Aune,
Magic in Early Christianity,; Eugene Gallagher, Divine Man or Magician?: Celsus and Origen on
Jesus (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984); and S. Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians.
63
122
popularity during the second through the fifth centuries. Moreover, magic intrigued
many among the eliteApuleius dabbled in sorcery and Nero was tutored in magical
arts. Most significant for our purposes, though, is the fact that the line between miracle
and magical feat remained blurry, at best, and yet miracles were an essential element
in the testimonies about and aretalogies of divine men, certainly no one more than
Jesus.
Accusations that Jesus was a magician figured prominently in both ancient
Jewish and pagan polemic against the founder and his followers.69 Morton Smiths
familiar but controversial claim that, by those who did not accept or follow him, Jesus
would have been described as a magician is well-known and his adduced evidencein
spite of being pressed beyond its limits at timesbegets abundant insights.70 M. Smith
observes that the evangelists could not eliminate the miracle stories from their
narratives because they were essential features of their stories. What they could do,
however, was tailor the telling of the tale. Matthew and Luke excised Marks impetuous
recollections of the physical means Jesus used to effect miracles (cf. parallels to Mk
7.33; 8.23), and John reduced the number to seven, and described them as signs not
miracles. Jesus claim to divinity as Son of God Mark posed in the rhetoric of a
messianic secret, the testimony to which issued only from the lips of heaven,
demons, disciples, and crowds until the high priest finally forced him to admit it.71
Informed by this discussion, let us turn our attention to the textual tradition.
There appear in the Gospels several variant readings bearing the marks of intentional
modification that, when considered in light of this accusation of magic, seem to
function apologetically. A prime example is located in Mark 6:2, a text that reads as
follows:
kai\ genome/nou sabba&tou h!rcato dida&skein e0n th|= sunagwgh|= kai\ polloi\
a)kou&ontev e0ceplh&ssonto le/gontev0 po&qen tou&tw| tau=ta kai\ ti&v h9 sofi/a
h9 doqei=sa tou&tw| kai\ ai9 duna&meiv toiau=tai dia\ tw~n xeirw~n au)tou=
gino&menai [v. l. i3na kai\ dun...gi/nwntai];
And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him
were astonished, saying, Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given
to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands?72
69
M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, 2245, 22930. M. Smith points to a number of ancient

works that discuss or portray Jesus in terms consonant with those of an ancient magician or
thaumaturge (wonder worker), including, along with the Gospels (e.g., Jn 20:19, Mk 16:18) and
apocryphal texts (Infancy Gospel of Thomas), Justin (Ap. I. 30), Tertullian (Ap. XXI.17), Origen
(Cels. II.49ff.) and Irenaeus (Haer. I.2325).
70
71
72
Actually, the textual traditions include several variations of this verse, but I am
considering here only the form relevant to this discussion of alterations affected by apologetic
interests with regard to perceptions of Jesus as a magician. See the critical apparatus of N-A27
123
This verse occurs in Marks pericope reporting Jesus rejection at Nazareth. The
original text read, Where did this man get these things? And what is this wisdom
(sofi/a) given him? And (kai/) what mighty works (duna&meiv) come to pass
(gino&menai) by his hands! Certain copyists, attested by C* D K (Q 700) it syh sams ,
produced the variant reading, Where did this man get all these things? And what is
this wisdom that has been given to him that enables him to do (or, more literally, in
order that he might do even...) such mighty works by his hands? Although, in fact,
several minor variations occur here, the reading relevant to this present discussion
involves the transformation of two distinct questions into a single sentence with a
purpose clause. There is no reason here to dispute the generally held opinion among
textual scholars that modification of the participle into a finite verb and the
introduction of i3na represents a secondary reading.73 Granted, at first glance the
changes appear to be little more than grammatical or stylistic; but notice what
implications are introduced and how the meaning of the verse is altered.
The salient point is that the secondary reading effectively mollifies the hint of
magic left unattended in the primary reading.74 The original reading, by reporting
that the crowd asked two explicit questions, implies a distinction (or at least in its
ambiguity leaves open the possibility of a distinction) in the gift of wisdom (sofi/a)
belonging to Jesus and his ability to perform acts generally regarded as miraculous.
This implied separation of wisdom and wonder-working could have invited
speculation on the part of the reader or hearer that Jesus effected cures and exorcisms
by means of magic. As we have seen, for citizens of Greco-Roman antiquity, the
distinction between magic and miracleand therefore magician and divine
manoften rested in the what source of power the observer perceived or conceived
that the practitioner was using to effect the change. If it was perceived that the power
was borrowed from outside, either by manipulation of elements, the summons of
demons, or the casting of spells, it was labeled magic; but if the onlooker believed that
the power issued from within the person, was a product of his innate being, he could
well be perceived as a divine man.75 It is striking, then, that the secondary reading
serves to connect Jesus miraculous power with his wisdom in such a way that sophia
is named as the specific and direct means by which Jesus is able to perform mighty
works. Subtle as this shift is, the effect of this scribal interpolation corresponds
precisely to apologetic strategies and pagan perceptions. One of the fundamental
principles of Justins apologetic theology was that Jesus was the incarnate Logos of
for a fuller display of variants within the reading.

73
For a fuller discussion of this and the other variant readings connected to Mark 6:2 see
B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 88, and V. Taylor, Mark, 299.
74
J. Marcus makes note of the implications of this text related to magic, but does not deal
with the textual variant in this regard. See idem, Mark 18, 37479.
75
About these distinctions, see Eugene Gallaghers discussion of the distinction between
articulate and inarticulate channels of power in idem, Divine Man or Magician?, 5557; and M.
Smith, Jesus the Magician, 9193.
124
God. Justin believed that Jesus power neither was derived from demonic manipulation
nor issued from any source other than himself; it simply was an extension of his own
divinely-endowed wisdom.
This understanding of what motivated certain scribes to so alter this text is
supported by evidence located in several ancient writers. First of all, the basic strategy
can be observed even in opponents of Christianity. Hierocles (c. 304 C.E.), for example,
who crafted a comparison of Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus much to the detriment of
the latter, argued that, where Jesus was clearly to be identified as a sorcerer, Apollonius
bore the classic traits of a true philosopher and man of wisdom (Hierocl. 12).
Eusebius, of course, answered to the contrary, arguing in Against Hierocles that it
was indeed Jesus who bore the character of a wise man, and Apollonius who
resembled a magician.76 He dedicated a portion of his Demonstratio evangelica (III.67)
to defend Jesus against those who held him to be a magician. Taking a different
approach, Justin,77 Origen,78 and Lactanius79 also defended Jesus against the charge of
magic by appealing to prophecy, interpreting Jesus healing activity as fulfillment of
ancient oracles, particularly those of Isaiah. Origen bolstered his position even further
by emphasizing the moral reform and enduring beneficial effect brought about in
association with Jesus miracles.80 Also, further support against the accusation of magic
could be found in the most unlikely of places, Porphyry. It is noteworthy that, unlike
most other pagan critics of Jesus and his movement, Porphyry did not accuse Jesus of
being a magician. Rather, he diminished his status with faint praise, substituting for
notions of his divine status credit for being a man of piety. According to Eusebius,
Porphyry in his book Philosophy from Oracles declared that the oracles announced that
the gods themselves affirmed the piety of Jesus and bestowed an immortal nature upon
him. For Porphyry, Jesus did not live up to the billing of the Christians, but neither did
he bear the disrepute heaped on him by Celsus and others; he was neither god nor
sorcerer.
Clearly grounded in the apologetic corpus, therefore, is abundant evidence of
concern for this matter of magic on the part of the defenders of the faith. In view of
this, and in light of the corresponding effect observed in the scribal reading, evidence
of apologetic interests appears a likely motivation lying behind the modification of this
text.
Concern with charges of magic also may have prompted scribes to produce the
variant reading located in Mark 1:34. This pericope occurs early in Marks gospel, in
the context of the first of the synoptic miraclesJesus healing Simons mother- in-law.
Word of the healing spreads quickly through Capernaum, the evangelist narrates, so
76
See M. Smiths treatment of Eusebius response to Hierocles in idem, Jesus the Magician,
90.
77
Ap. I.30.
Cels. II.48.
79
Div. Inst. V.3.9.
80
Cels. V.62, VI.39.
78
125
that by sundown townspeople have brought to him those known to them who are sick
and possessed with demons. Jesus heals many of them with various ailments. He also
exorcizes many demons, but in the act of doing so, we are informed, he does not
permit them to speak because they knew him (o3ti h|!deisan au)to&n).
For Mark, of course, this prohibition is undoubtedly related to his messianic secret
motif.81 Outsiders, however, could have easily understood this text as evidence that
Jesus was a magician. Although educated persons generally detested sorcerers,
everyone who believed in the existence and power of the daimonia to effect daily life
usually took seriously the possibility that a go/hv or ma&gov could manipulate them.82
We have already noted that Jesus adversaries were quick to ascribe his ability to
perform exorcisms to his familiarity with the prince of demons, Beelzebub (Mark
3:1927). Moreover, use of the imperative mood to cast out demons in the Gospels
imitates a form of adjuration quite common in the magical literature. In the words of
D. Aune, the short authoritative commands of Jesus to demons in the gospel
narratives are formulas of magical adjuration.83 Moreover, Morton Smith adds the
point that observers generally believed that a person was able to perform exorcisms
by either gaining power over demons or by conjuring greater spirits to do their
bidding, or, in some cases, by becoming possessed by such a powerful spirit. Smith
argues that those who thought Jesus was John the Baptist redivivus would have
understood their belief in terms of magic.84 All this was based on the proposition that
the wonder-worker could contact and engage the spirit world. They knew spirits,
demons, and their names, and were recognized by those spirits when summoned. The
open-ended declaration, then, that demons knew Jesus appears to report an intimate
association between residents of the spirit realm and Jesus; this, no doubt, would have
sounded to many first-century Hellenists like the rhetoric of Greco-Roman magic.
In this regard, it is striking to recognize that the variant reading that currently
occupies our attention has the effect of qualifying this specific acquaintance. As
reported by 2 B C L W Q f1.13 22 28 33 349 565 700 1424 vgmss syh**sams bo, certain
scribes completed the verse by adding (to_n) au)to_n xristo_n ei]nai, so that the
complete thought read, he would not permit the demons to speak because they knew
him to be the Christ (my italics).
81
As first detected by William Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Gttingen,
1901). For more a recent treatment related to this text and a cogent summary of the matter in
general see J. Marcus, Mark 18, 195201, 52527. It is interesting in this context, too, that G.
Theissen argues that, while indications of the secrecy motif outside of the miracle stories are
editorial in origin, those attached to the miracle stories are traditional and associated with magic.
See idem, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983),
14052.
82
For definitions of these terms as they were used in antiquity, see Gerhard Delling,
go/hv, I.7378, and idem, ma&gov, IV.3569, in G. Kittel, ed., TWNT; and G. W. H.
Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, 321; and Liddell-Scott, Lexicon, 856, 1071.
83
D. Aune, Magic in Early Christianity,1532.
84
126
It should be noted that B. Metzger, V. Taylor, and others readily attribute the
cause of this modification to synoptic assimilation; the altered reading imitates Luke
4:41.85 One need not contend with so obvious a fact, but neither should it be
presumed that upon recourse to assimilation the matter is settled.86 It may prove useful
if we press on and compare briefly the parallel accounts of this pericope across the
triple tradition.
The parallels are located in Mark 1:3234, Luke 4:4041, and Matthew 8:1617.
Assuming Markan priority, let us begin our review with the Matthean revision of the
story. Where Matthew follows Mark, he for the most part copies him verbatim. It is
interesting, however, that Matthew focuses on the demon-possessed, omitting Mark's
first reference to the sick and adding mention of them only as an afterthought. Also,
where Mark reports that Jesus healed many who were sick with various diseases,
Matthew says that Christ healed all who were sick. Matthews major modification of
Mark, though, is his conclusion that Jesus healing activity is to be understood in light
of Isaiah 53:4. Compared across the triple tradition, this theme of prophetic fulfillment
is unique to Matthews treatment of this story. It is noteworthy, then, that Matthews
assertion that Jesus ability to work miracles was anticipated by the prophets reflects
one of the major distinctions apologists found to emphasize between Jesus and
Apollonius of Tyana.
Turning to Luke, one initially observes several features one would expect from the
authors style. His prose is more fluid and lyrical than Marks, and he underscores a
relational element behind those who brought the sick to Jesus. All those who had any
who were sick, rather than simply they, are the subjects who usher the ill to Jesus.
Also, where Matthew informed that Jesus drove out the demons with a word, Luke,
in keeping with his theme of compassion, narrates that Jesus healed by laying his hands
on every one of them. Luke reverses Matthews emphasis on exorcism, first reporting
how Jesus healed the sick (again, like Matthew, all of them), and only secondarily
mentions the demon-possessed. At the conclusion of the text, though, Luke follows
Mark much more closely than Matthew does, though he embellishes the story in two
ways. Where Mark simply reports that Jesus did not allow the demons to speak
85
B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 75; V. Taylor, Mark, 18182; C. E. B. Cranfield, The
Gospel According to St. Mark, 88; C. S. Mann, Mark, 216.
86
Two questions remain. First, Why, then, did Luke modify his source? Secondly, Why
did some scribes choose to assimilate their texts here but not elsewhere? As noted in the
previous chapter, assimilation was not a rigid practice among scribes. If it had been, the
Synoptics would in at least some manuscripts bear much closer resemblance to one another
than they do. Many examples of scribal assimilation demonstrate that copyists were aware of
synoptic relationships and could be informed by parallel texts; but the lack of systematic effort
suggests that, at least in some cases, some other motivation or factor may have been active in
calling attention to harmonize the dissonance between parallel texts. It was in this regard that
I suggested earlier (in the previous chapter) that in certain instances some scribes, in order to
reconcile disputed facts or events among evangelists, appear to have acted under the influence
of apologetic concerns.
127
because they knew him, Luke places words in the mouths of the daimonia; they exclaim,
You are the Son of God! Some later scribes further garnished this declaration,
inserting, You are the Christ, the Son of God! Finally, Luke supplements his
exemplars epilogue, changing Marks o3ti h|!deisan au)to&n (because they knew him)
by substituting for the objective pronoun the phrase, to_n xristo_n au)to_n
ei0=nai(because they knew him to be the Christ ). Therefore, Luke clearly created from
Mark the reading that eventually found its way back into some versions of Mark by
way of scribal assimilation. Moreover, it seems obvious that his embellishment is
designed to clarify precisely what it is these demons knew about Jesus. They knew him,
not as one of them, but as the holy one sent from God.
To summarize this point, both Matthew and Luke were led to ornament this
miracle story with an explanation, albeit a different one for each, related to Jesus
performing acts of power. Matthew explained this activity in terms of prophetic
fulfillment, while Luke defended his work on the basis of messianic identity. What
each accomplished, though, was the displacement of the dangling demonic recognition
of Jesus that could have been understood by outsiders or critics as tantamount to
magic. The scribes who chose to assimilate Marks ending to that of Luke produced
a reading that reflected issues and strategies that run throughout the apologetic corpus.
Of course, we cannot enter the minds of scribes; we know them only from their
manuscripts. Whether these scribes simply parroted Luke or acted with an awareness
of the calumnies of magician directed at Jesus is hard to know. What we can know
is that the amended reading functions apologetically.
Another textual variant that reflects this concern with associating Jesus and
demons occurs in Matthew 9:34. The variant reading consists of whether or not the
entire verse, oi9 de\ Farisai=oi e!legon0 e0n tw|= a!rxonti tw=n daimoni/wn e0kba&llei
ta_ daimo&nia, belonged to the original or was added later by a scribe. This verse
concludes the Matthean version of a brief pericope belonging to the triple tradition in
which Jesus heals a deaf mute by driving out the demon ostensibly responsible for the
affliction. When Jesus effects the cure, almost without breaking stride, the crowds
marvel, acclaiming, Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel. The verse in
question, though, appears as a counterpoint to the crowds and reports that the
Pharisees disputed Jesus action by growling, He casts out demons by the prince of
demons.
Some few manuscripts (only D a k sys and Hilary of Poitiers [c. 315367]) bear
witness to this verse, while others either omit it or reflect its absence to be original.
Unfortunately, the matter is not clear-cut. Acknowledging their own difficulty with the
verse and rating their decision with only a {C}, Metzger on behalf of the UBS4
Committee reports their tenuous conclusion that the verse was more likely original.87
Along transcriptional lines, he joins several commentators in noting that the verse
could have been added by scribes under the influence of assimilation to Matthew 12:24
or Luke 11:15. Intrinsically, though, he points out that the passage seems to be
87
B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2526.
128
required to prepare the reader for Matthew 10:25,88 and in this estimation Davies and
Allison concur.89 Albright and Mann support the originality of the verse on the basis
that it recapitulates a frequent Matthean theme: the sharp contrast in response to Jesus
as seen in the welcome of the crowds over against the hostility of some corners of
Judaism.90 In addition, the slim external evidence that testifies to its exclusion heavily
favors the longer reading.
If on this collective basis we may determine the verse to be original, then the
choice on the part of scribes to omit the verse may well be explained by apologetic
interests. The substance of what they excised from their exemplar consists of material
that was cited by pagan critics against Christians.
More evidence related to the charge of magic may be discerned in light of
Samain's contention that identification of imposter was often related to that of a
magician. Twice variant readings located in Luke serve to buttress the claim that Jesus
was no charlatan and his resurrection was no sham. In its transmission of Luke 23:52,
one Old Latin manuscript (c) carefully reports that Pilate received clear word that Jesus
had expired, and that he even praised the Lord upon hearing the news.91 Moreover, the
offhand insinuation that the stone might have been easily discarded and Jesus body
stolen by his followers (an allegation anticipated by Matthew in his report of a Roman
garrison stationed to prevent any tampering with the tomb) was thwarted to some
extent by various scribal embellishments attached to Luke 23:53. Several witnesses
(among them U f 13 700 bo) give testimony that scribes assimilated from the parallel
texts in Matthew 27:60 and Mark 15:46 the report that a great stone was rolled in front
of the door of the tomb.92 In Codices Bezae (D) and Colbertinus (c), along with the
Sahidic version, we peruse the additional detail that the stone was so large that twenty
men could scarcely move it.93 Remembering that Jesus confederates are generally
numbered at twelve, this statement would have implied that even the full
complement of his detachment would have fallen short of the number necessary to
budge the boulder. Something else, something supernatural perhaps, would be required
to move that stone.
In both of these cases, the scribal modifications serve apologetic interests.
According to the scribes, when he was taken to the tomb Jesus was really dead; this
was verified by Pilate himself. Also, when he was laid in the tomb, his final fate was
88
Which reads, It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his
master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign
those of his household.
89
W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew II, 139.
90
W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, 112113.
91
The Latin of the 12th/13th century Codex Colbertinus (c) reads, Pilatus autem cum
audisset, quia expiravit, clarificavit dominium et donavit corpus Joseph. Though it is difficult
to know, it is possible that the reading located in this manuscript reflects scribal input from a
much earlier era.
92
See IGNTP, Luke, Vol. II, 22829, and B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 1823.
93
129
sealed with a stone so heavy it would require a score of able bodies to contend with
it. Both of these reports stand in bold opposition to any possibility of deception or
fraud, both of which Jesus was accused of and both of which were frequently
associated with magic.
A MAN OF PROFANE TEMPERAMENT
For Greco-Roman ancients enamored with the four cardinal virtues (prudence,
temperance, fortitude, and justice), anger scarcely befitted a god.94 Such crude emotion
was in the eyes of both critics and advocates of Christianity viewed as an unseemly and
unsuitable characteristic to be associated with divinity. The Christian apologist
Aristides described God as being void of ire, saying, anger and wrath he possesses
not...,95 and contrasted the Christian god with those of the Greeks, some of whom
he characterized as adulterers and murders, jealous and envious, and angry
(o)rgi/louv) and passionate, and murderers of fathers, and thieves and plunderers.96
So Athenagoras, who, contrasting his God with that of the carnal lascivious deities
portrayed in Greek myths, avowed, ...for in God there is neither anger (o)rgh&) nor
lust and desire....97 Tatian, too, assumed this posture, ridiculing those who would
ascribe immortality to beings subject to base desires, laughter, and anger
(o)rgizo&menov), and challenging, Why should I demonstrate piety toward gods who
take bribes and grow angry (o)rgizome/nouv) when they do not receive them? In
concert with these predecessors, Arnobius of Sicca, a Christian apologist writing in
Latin in the late third century and prior to the Constantinian elevation of Christianity,
found all base passions incompatible with the nature of divinity.98 Celsus declared that
God lacked the capacity of doing anything ignoble and that his right and just nature
transcended base appetites and irregularities,99 and he ridiculed the Christian scriptures
for their incompatible depiction of a god boorish in his susceptibility to human
passions and his proclivity for angry utterances.100 Similarly, Celsus ridiculed Jesus for
94
Cardinal Virtues, in F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), 239. These cardinal virtues were first
espoused by Plato and Aristotle, and later adopted and adapted by Christian theologians,
especially Augustine and Aquinas. In contrast to these cardinal or moral virtues, they placed the
theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.
95
J. R. Harris, The Apology of Aristides (TS I, J. A. Robinson, ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1893), 36. Cf. Greek text, 100.
96
J. R. Harris, Apology of Aristides, 40. Cf. Greek text, 104.
97
Leg. 21.1.
98
Arnobius of Sicca, Adversus Nationes, Book III. For a brief discussion of Arnobius see J.
Quasten, Patrology (Vol 2; Utrecht-Antwerp and Westminster, Maryland: Spectrum and Newman
Press, 1950), 383392.
99
Cels. V.14.
100
Cels. IV.71.
130
what he termed his threats and empty abuse.101 These charges were of sufficient
concern to Origen that he devoted an entire chapter to explain that the so-called
wrath (o)rgh&) of God and what is called His anger (qumo&v) has a corrective
purpose....102
In sum, anger was, in the attitudes of genteel intellectuals of the second and third
centuries, unsuited to the divine character. These sources testify that for many of the
participants in the apologetic dialogues of the second and third centuries the
association of base human emotions with the divine characterparticularly negative
ones such as lust and angerstruck a strident chord. A profane temperament was, at
best, uncharacteristic of a deity or a holy man.
Evidence located in the scribal tradition reveals that certain copyists of the New
Testament apparently found this collision of hot-headedness with holiness equally
shrill. A quintessential example of this occurs in Mark 1:41, a text familiar to all textual
scholars. Because the context is so critical for evaluating this reading, I reproduce here
the entire pericope. The story of Jesus healing a leper in Mark 1:4045 reads as follows:
40 Kai\ e!rxetai pro\v au)to\n lepro\v parakalw=n au)to\n [kai\ gonupetw~n]
kai\ le/gwn au)tw|= o3ti e0an qe/lh|v du/nasai/ me kaqari/sai. 41 kai\ splagxnisqei\v
[v.l. o0rgisqei/v] e0ktei/nav th_n xei=ra au)tou= h!yato kai\ le/gei au)tw|=0 qe/lw
kaqari/sqhti0 42 kai\ [ei1pontov au)tou=] e0uqu\v a0ph=lqen a0p 0 au)tou= h9 le/pra
kai\ e0kaqari/sqh. 43 kai\ e0mbrimhsa&menov au)tw|= eu)qu\v e0ce/balen au)to\n] 44 kai\
le/gei au)tw|=0 o3ra mhdeni\ mhde\n ei1ph|v a0lla\ u3page seauto\n dei=con tw|= i9erei=
kai\ prose/negke peri\ tou= kaqarismou= sou a$ prose/tacen Mwu+sh=v ei0v
martu/rion au)toi=v. 45 o9 de\ e0celqw_n h!rcato khru/ssein po/lla\ kai\
diafhmi/zein to\n lo/gon w#ste mhke/ti au)ton du/nasqai fanerw=v ei0v po/lin
ei0selqei==n a)ll 0 e!cw e0p 0 e0rh/moiv to/poiv h]n0 kai\ h1rxonto pro\v au)to\n
pa&ntoqen.
40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, If you will,
you can make me clean. 41 Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched
him, and said to him, I will; be clean. 42 And immediately the leprosy left him, and
he was made clean. 43 And he sternly charged him, and sent him away at once, 44
and said to him, See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the
priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the
people. 45 But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news,
so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in the country; and
people came to him from every quarter.103
Although several noteworthy variants reside in this pericope, our present interest lies
in the disparate traditions regarding the participles that describe Jesus emotional
101
Cels. II.76.
Cels. IV.72.
103
The Greek text and English translation are derived from N-A27. B. and K. Aland, et al.,
eds., Greek-English New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 9192.
102
131
condition when he healed this desperate petitioner. Jesus is portrayed at seemingly

polar extremes on the emotional continuum. The vast majority of manuscripts, among
them the strongest representatives of the Alexandrian, Caesarean, and Majority texttypes, report innocuously enough that, when he was encountered by the pleading leper,
Jesus was moved with pity (splagxnisqei/v), and so reached out, touched, and
cleansed him. Against these witnesses, however, the best regarded witnesses of the
Western traditionamong them Codex Bezae (D) and several Old Latin
manuscriptsenigmatically attest that Jesus reacted to the leper's approach with anger
(o)rgisqei/v).
Scholars have remained divided in their evaluation of this variant reading in Mark
1:41. Mainly on the grounds of the preponderance of corroborating external evidence,
the UBS4 Committee determined the former reading to be original, although they
attached to their verdict only a {D} rating. An increasing number of scholars, though,
favor o)rgisqei/v as the product of the author. Some do so on the belief that
o)rgisqei/v is the more difficult reading (difficilior lectio potior), though even this opinion
is not universally held. Exegetes have noted that the verbs that follow in Mark 1:43
more nearly correspond to anger than compassion.104 In view of verse 43, then,
splagxnisqei/v can be construed as the more difficult reading. Holders of this
position offer the transcriptional argument that scribes substituted o)rgisqei/v for
splagxnisqei/v in order to lend stylistic consistency to the tone of the story.
Recent appeal to insights gleaned from synoptic comparison, however, have
suggested a shift in the weight of external evidence.105 While it is widely acknowledged
that the particular confluence of sources represented by this specific constellation of
Western witnesses represents text traceable to the second century, a further pair of
witnesses offers testimony that enables this reading to trace its lineage back even a
century earlier!106 It is almost universally recognized that Matthew and Luke used Mark
as a source. Thus, pericopes of the triple tradition may be evaluated in such a way as
to shed light on the original text of Marks gospel. Illustrating this principle in his
evaluation of this text, J. K. Elliott calls attention to the synoptic parallels of the
healing of the leper, and notes with accuracy that the writers of both Matthew and
104
The verbs are e0mbrimhsa&menov, meaning literally to snort, and usually translated
rebuking or sternly warning, and e0ce/balen, a term usually associated with casting out
demons, but here generally read sent away.
105
For the substance of the following argument I am indebted chiefly to Bart D. Ehrman,
The Text of the Gospels at the End of the Second Century, in Codex Bezae: Studies from the
Lunel Colloquium, June 1994, edited by D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1996), 118120.
106
The recognition that Matthew and Luke as redactors of Mark inform the textual
problems of Mark 1:41 has been observed at least as early as V. Taylor, 187, and, more recently,
in Bart Ehrman, The Text of the Gospels at the End of the Second Century, 119, and J. K.
Elliott, An Eclectic Textual Commentary on the Greek Text of Marks Gospel, New Testament
Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, edited by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1981), 523.
132
Luke omit the adverbial participle altogether, so that any remnant of emotion on the
part of Marks Jesus, whether anger or compassion, is omitted.107
Moreover, as we extend this approach across the entire triple tradition, we
discover an informing pattern in how the synoptic redactors of Mark transmit episodes
of Jesus exhibiting anger or compassion. Like the number of apologists cited
above, they betray a reluctance to ascribe anger to Jesus. As reported by Metzger
himself, Mark portrays Jesus being angry or indignant two other times in his gospel,
at 3:5 in the account of healing the man with the withered hand, and 10:14, the
narrative of the blessing of the children. In the healing narrative, Jesus peers at the
Pharisees and Herodians with anger for their hardness of heart, and in the incident
involving the children, he grows indignant with his disciples when they attempt to
deter children who seek to draw near to him. Comparison of the synoptic parallels (Mk
3:5=Mt 12:13, Lk 6:10; Mk 10:14=Mt 19:14, Lk 18:15) to these two episodes, however,
reveals that in each instance Matthew and Luke delete any indication that negative
emotion was displayed by Jesus.
On the other hand, apart from the text currently under consideration, Mark
employs some form of the verb splagxni/zomai three times (Mark 6:34=Mt 14:14,
Lk 9:11; Mk 8:2=Mt 15:32, no Lucan parallel; and Mk 9:22). The first use occurs in an
episode of the triple tradition, the feeding of the five thousand. Matthew follows Mark
verbatim in reporting that Jesus, upon seeing the crowd, had compassion
(e0splagxni/sqh) on them. Luke, as is often the case, is more liberal in his use of
Mark, and does not employ the term, but he does substitute for it a word that conveys
a positive emotional state: e0podeca&menov, he welcomed them. The second use of
the term splagxni/zomai occurs in the narrative of the feeding of the four thousand,
which Matthew copies from Mark but Luke omits. As he did in reporting the previous
feeding miracle, Matthew follows Mark word for word, repeating his use of
splagxni/zomai. Marks third use of the verb occurs in his report of Jesus healing the
epileptic, and although neither Matthew nor Luke employ the term in their accounts,
it should be noted that they so abbreviate this story that there is no verse that could
rightly be considered a parallel to the one in which splagxnisqei/v occurs. Other
examples do occur in Matthew and Luke, however, where Jesus displays compassion
in the context of a healing incident (Mt 20:34, Lk 7:13).
From this survey of the synoptic parallels to Markan depictions of Jesus as either
angry or compassionate there emerges a generally consistent pattern. On the one
hand, at no time does either Matthew or Luke hesitate to describe Jesus as
compassionate, and Matthew, moreover, in two instances follows verbatim Marks
use of splagxni/zomai. On the other hand, never does either Matthew or Luke carry
over into their texts from Mark the vocabulary of Jesus exhibiting anger or indignation.
This demonstrates that these earliest copyists of Marks Gospel willingly reproduced
his characterizations of Jesus as compassionate, but intentionally stifled any report of
him as angry.
107
J. K. Elliott, An Eclectic Textual Commentary, 523.
133
The implications of these results for determining the original reading of Mark
1:1 are clear. If, as seems likely, the evangelists had remained consistent to their pattern
in treating this verse, if Matthew and Luke had found splagxnisqei/v in their
exemplar at this point, they would have simply copied it. Yet, if they had come upon
the reading o0rgisqei/v they almost certainly would have deleted it. The synoptic
parallels to Mark 1:41 omit the participle in question. It seems reasonable to conclude,
then, that the first century text of Mark to which the authors of Matthew and Luke had
access included the reading o0rgisqei/v.
These fresh observations demand a radical reappraisal of the relative merits of the
external evidence pertaining to Mark 1:41. Although the quality and quantity of the
manuscript support for reading splagxnisqei/v remains formidable, the testimony
of the significant combination of Western witnesses in concert with the augmenting
evidence unearthed from synoptic investigation offers documentation that o0rgisqei/v
bears a literary legacy of great antiquity, and may well have issued from the stylus of
Mark. Some will undoubtedly find this treatment of the external evidence compelling
enough on its own merits to support o0rgisqei/v as the preferred reading. Even those
who remain unconvinced, however, must recognize that a final verdict on this text
should not be rendered on the basis of external evidence alone.
Transcriptional consideration of this reading confirms this conclusion. Metzger
himself concedes that it is easier to see why scribes would have moved from anger to
compassion than to account for a change in the opposite direction.108 It is this very
concession, however, that a number of scholars find to be compelling reason for
adopting o0rgisqei/v as the variant which best represents the autograph. Vincent
Taylor summarizes the sentiments of this contingent when he says, It is easy to see
why being angry was changed to being filled with compassion, but not easy to
account for the alteration vice versa.109 Although I agree with this conclusion, it should
be noted that seldom has any hard evidence been adduced to support it.
One notable exception to this appears in the previously referenced essay by Bart
Ehrman, in which he examines the correspondence between textual variants located
in Codex Bezae and second century scribal concerns related to the proto-orthodox
cause: christological controversies, an evolving Christian anti-semitism, the
ecclesiastical suppression of women, the impulse toward asceticism, and Christian
apologetics. Ehrman reviews the textual problems of Mark 1:41 informed by this last
category, reporting how the proposed mollification of the reading from anger to
compassion corresponds to the apologetic impulse represented by the literary
defenders of the faith.110
108

V. Taylor, 187. For a sampler of other scholars favoring this reading see footnote 3.
110
B. Ehrman, Text of the Gospels, 120.
109
134
Although recently scholars have begun to adopt the stance represented here by
V. Taylor and B. Ehrman, the argument has continued to lack the compelling force of
being sufficiently grounded in the apologetic tradition. As stated earlier, too often
transcriptional judgments have been rendered on the convictions of common sense
rather than on the basis of hard evidence from the primary literature. Yet, as is noted
above, this lacuna is unnecessary. The pagan critic Celsus as well as the defenders of
the faith, Aristides, Athenagoras, and Arnobius articulate in their writings an evident
reluctance to characterize deities or divine persons as angry. Thus, at least some second
and third intellectuals were unwilling to let stand the juxtaposition of hostility and
holiness. It is on this foundation, then, that textual critics can confidently erect the
transcriptional argument that scribes conscientiously attuned to apologetic interests
supplanted anger with compassion. In this subtle but bold alteration of Mark 1:41,
scribes produced a text that proclaimed a kinder, gentler Jesus.
In summary, the aforementioned sketch of the censures of Celsus and Origens
pious replies embodies the dynamics of the Pagan-Christian polemic as it played out
in the second and third centuries of the common era.111 This, of course, was both the
heyday of Christian apologetic and the period in which the consensus of New
Testament textual scholars maintain that the majority of textual variants found their
way into the tradition. Clearly the character of Jesus was at stake, and persons
interested in defending the faith from frontal assault were becoming increasingly aware
that pagans were searching out their own scriptures for ammunition to use against
them. Despite the generally conservative practice of the manual duplication of sacred
texts, it does not stress reason to conceive of an apologetically-sensitive scribe imbuing
his manuscript with an occasional subtle modification, or mollification, which thus
buttressed the sacred writings from being exploited by the opposition. The evidence
for reading o0rgisqei/v as original has been reported, and is in my judgment
compelling. Moreover, this conception of apologetic motivation offers a plausible,
historically-rooted transcriptional rationale for why a scribe might haveindeed, likely
would havealtered o0rgisqei/v to splagxnisqei/v.
This interest in portraying Jesus as benevolent rather than uncharitable, responsive
rather than abrupt, and peaceful rather than violent appears to have been at work in
several other variants, as well. The question of whether or not Matthew 21:44 should
be numbered among them depends mainly on whether one determines the verse to be
a product of the author or the interpolation of a copyist. The textual dispute involves
the entire verse, which reads:
111
For a more thoroughgoing treatment of the pagan critique of Christianity during this
period, see Stephen Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries
A.D., ANRW II.23.2, 10551118. A useful summary addressed to wider audiences may be
found in Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1984).
135
kai\ o9 pesw_n e0pi\ to\n li/qon tou=ton sunqlasqh/setai0 e0f 0 o4n d 0 a@n pe/sh|
likmh/sei au0to/n.
And he who trips over this stone will be broken to pieces; and upon whomever it
might fall, it will crush him.
Grading their judgment with only a {C} rating, the UBS4 committee determined that
the reading did not represent the authors handiwork but found its way into the
Matthean narrative by way of assimilation to Luke 20:18. B. Metzger on behalf of the
committee reports, on the other hand, that the words of this verse are not identical
with those of Luke, and he surmises that, if inserted, they would have been better
placed after the quote of Psalm 118 in 21:42 (as the Lukan text does). He also grants
that mechanical error could easily explain the omission.112 Taking the other side of the
debate, Albright and Mann attribute the verse to Matthean authorship, treating it as an
emphatic extension of the theme of this sectionIsraels rejection of Jesus. Most
manuscripts, in fact, do report the verse ( B C L W Z (Q) 0102 f1.13 Maj lat syc.p.h co),
while it is mainly Western witnesses (D it sys) along with 33, Origen, and Syriac
Eusebius that testify to its absence (or omission). Neither is it found in Irenaeus or
Tatians Diatessaron. While numbers favor the reading, the quality of those that express
either no knowledge or deliberate excision of the reading deserves attention. It is fair
to say that the external evidence is divided, with strong attestors on each side of the
debate.
Examining the text from the perspective of intrinsic probabilities provides a
slightly improved perspective on the matter. The text appears shortly following the
account of Jesus cleansing the temple, and at the end of the second of a trio of
parables: two sons asked to work in the vineyard, the tenant farmers who slay the heir,
and the king who issued invitations for a wedding feast. The writer of Matthew
connects the telling of the second parable with a powerful image from Psalm
118:2223, the rejected rock that becomes the head of the corner, and concludes it
with the fateful words, When the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parables they
realized he was speaking about them, but when they tried to arrest him, they feared the
crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet. Albright and Mann regard this
conjunction of parables as the watershed point in the Gospel. From this point on,
discussion with Jesus is over, and the energy of his antagonists is directed toward
entrapping, arresting, and destroying him. Pursuing this line of thought, it does not
seem far afield to say that this rhetoric of violence complements the content of
Matthews narrative, and could well have rested in the original text. The likelihood
that this is so is increased by the recognition that the violent imagery here appears to
echo Daniel 2:34, 44 and Isaiah 8:1415, 28:16. Since allusions to Daniel and Isaiah are
frequent in Matthew, this fact increases the intrinsic probabilities in favor of the
112
136
originality of the verse.113 Krister Stendahl adduces the possible influence of

parallelism with Luke, but also advances the notion that Matthew was familiar with the
tradition of testimonies that evolved into a more elaborate form in 1 Peter 2:7 and
Romans 9:33.114 Attribution of verse 44 to the writer of Matthew is also argued by S.
G. F. Brandon.115 Such testimony related to the intrinsic probabilities surrounding
Matthew 21:44 may not prove conclusive, but they are enough to lead us to measure
this dispute according to the third canon of criticism, that of transcriptional
probabilities.
Here the question is whether a scribe is more likely to have added or deleted the
verse. Considering the first option of scribal interpolation, the obvious suggestion is
that a copyist assimilated the text of Matthew to that of Luke 20:18; but this has
already been brought into question. Against this thesis is the fact that neither precise
wording nor parallel location is in effect here. In Luke, the verse follows directly the
quote of Psalm 118; the placement in Matthew removes it slightly. Certainly scribes
could have assimilated from memory and not direct citation, which would therefore
explain the slight difference in wording; but the matter of placement would remain.
The theory that original Matthew did not include the verse but found its way into
the tradition by way of scribal assimilation to Luke seems circuitous in comparison
with the supposition that Matthew originally included 21:44 and that later scribes either
113
For a compilation and treatment of some of the allusions to Daniel employed by the
author of Matthew, see Robert Horton Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel
(NovTSup XVIII; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967), passim, e.g., 207. Gundry believes the text issued
from Matthew on the basis of the consistent messianic implications inherent in this verse and
Daniel 7:13. He writes on p. 233, Since Daniel 7 presents a Messianic figure as receiving the
eschatological kingdom, it is only natural that we should see Messianic significance in the stone
which smites the image in Dan 2 and becomes the kingdom of God (Mt 21:44). For discussion
of this verse in relation to the Isaiah texts, see Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its
Use of the Old Testament (1st American ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 6769.
114
K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 68.
115
S. G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London, 1951), 244 f.
137
accidentally or purposefully omitted it.116 Applied here, Ockhams razor would support
the originality of the verse.
If then, to begin at the opposite shore, the verse is considered original, what are
we to make of its omission? Metzger, it has already been noted, entertained the
possibility of mechanical error. Perhaps here, though, a strong case can be made for
the motivation of apologetic interests. In keeping with the descriptions and citations
related above, copyists attuned to the theme of violence in apologetic-pagan discourse
would have possessed ample reason to expunge this entire verse from their exemplars.
It is noteworthy, in this regard, that included among those sources that would
therefore bear witness to the deliberate excision of this violent verse would be the
apologists Origen, Tatian (Diatessaron), and Eusebius (syr).117
In keeping with this theme but in a slightly different vein, variation in the
manuscript tradition of Matthew 15:26 alters Jesus reply to the Cananite woman of
Tyre who pleads for help on behalf of her demon-possessed daughter. Some
manuscripts report Jesus saying, It is not good/right (e1stin kalo\n) to take bread from
children and give it to the dogs, while others (D, it, sys.c) transmit the verse as, It is
not lawful (e1cestin).... This is also the reading known to the apologist Origen.
Determining the direction of this subtle shift is difficult. The judgment of the
UBS4 Committee in favor of the majority reading earned from themselves only a {C}
rating. The antiquity of the Western witnesses that report the latter reading, along
with the transcriptional argument that copyists may have recast the verse under the
influence of Mark 7:27, constitute reasonable cause for favoring e1zestin as original.
On the other hand, as the editors of UBS4 contend, it appears more plausible that
e1zestin was introduced into the text to reinforce Jesus reply, recasting it from
rhetoric about what is morally fitting to what is lawful or permitted by social
constraint.118
116
For an extreme example of such a circuitous argument in favor of the interpolation of

Matthew 21:44, see Willoughby C. Allen, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (ICC XXVI; New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925), 23233. Allen explains that Matthew 21:44 is best
understood as an early editorial gloss. He argues that it is unlikely that the writer himself would
have included verse 44, since it would carry the thought of the reader back to verse 42 and draw
attention away from the writer's interpretation of the quotation from Psalms (21:42) in terms
of verse 43. Allen then posits that a later copyist was reminded by the vocabulary of verse 43
of Daniel 2:4445, which formed for him the nucleus of an explanatory gloss. Thus he argues
that the textual history of 21:44 does not issue from efforts to assimilate the text to Luke 20:18,
but to embellish Matthew 21:43. His conclusion, however, then makes it necessary for Allen to
explain the development of Luke 20:18. He does so by arguing that the gloss found its way into
Matthew early enough that it may have been read as part of Matthew by the author of the third
Gospel. Finally, he ventures that there is no reason the same editor could not have added the
gloss to both Matthew and Luke.
117
Compare also the manuscripts here that favor the apologetic reading with those, e.g., in
Mark 3:21 and Mark 6:3 below.
118
138
This admittedly conjectural supposition gains some reasoned momentum when

it is coupled with the recognition that there appears to be no particular Roman law to
which Jesus is referring. Since it does not appear to be Hebrew law (Torah) that is
being referenced here, some other antecedent is called for. In this context, it does not
seem unreasonable to suggest that this reference was directed to no specific law, but
rather to the acceptable habits of well-mannered society. there were simply some
things that, by well-bred citizens were not done. Read this way, the altered vocabulary
would have functioned to introduce into the verse the theme of adherence to cultural
norms and the notion of being law-abiding. The modified reading, then, would have
imbued the text with the implication that Jesus was in some since deferential to the
customs of the society around him and, in fact, did not view it as his mission to
oppose the habits and attitudes associated with the customs of the land. This
implication would, in turn, fit precisely within the contours of the apologetic motif that
Christ and his followers were good, law-abiding citizens of the empire, and that they
were totally without interest in overthrowing earthly power structures or directing
irreverence at the prescribed dignities of Greco-Roman society.
Generally speaking, Greek intellectuals preferred gods that were rational, not
emotional.119 We can see this in the Apology of Aristides, wherein his effort to
sharpen the distinction between the Christian god from the anthropomorphic deities
of Greek mythshe reports, And they say that some of them were lame and maimed;
and some were wizards, and some utterly mad.120 Aristides was therefore attempting
to contrast his god with those mythologically deposed to be physically imperfect,
magicians, or insane. Of course, each of these charges was leveled against Jesus by
Celsus, who reported that he was ugly, performed miracles by means of necromancy,
and was quite mad. Trypho directed this same charge against Justin when he says, I
wish you knew that you were beside yourself, talking like this....121
The perception that Jesus was mad is reported in Mark 3:21. Variation in the text
arises, interestingly enough, not on the matter of whether he was perceived so, but
who it was that deemed him mad. Scholars do not dispute the original text here.
Clearly it reads, And when his friends/ his relatives (literally, oi9 par) au0tou=) heard
about him, they came out to seize him; for they said that he was mad (literally, beside
himself, e0ce/sth). In an altered rendering of the verse, however, key representatives
119
In contrast with the bulk of the populace who identified more easily with the
anthropomorphic gods depicted in the epic poetry of Homer and Hesiod, Greek and Roman
intellectuals gravitated toward the singular, transcendent, incorporeal deity that issued from
Platonic philosophy. It was precisely this evolving philosophical monotheism that represented
the central point of contact between Greco-Roman thinkers and the Christian apologists. Like
their philosophical counterparts, defenders of the faith described their God in the language of
negative theology. While it was difficult for mortal beings to express with precision what God
was, it was easier to say what God was not. So, the deity was depicted as invisible, without rival,
incapable of evil, unknowable.
120
Aristides, Ap. VIII, cited from J. R. Harris, Apology of Aristides, 40. Greek text, 104.
121
Dial. 39.
139
of the Western text (D W it) transmit a different subject. No longer is it oi9 par)
au0tou= who perceive him to be beside himself, but the scribes and the others
around him (peri\ au0tou= oi9 gra&mmateiv kai\ oi9 lo/poi) who regard him as such
and therefore seek his capture.
The apologetic significance of this modification seems evident. In Metzgers
words, the change is the result of the embarrassment to which this text lent itself. For
Jesus own friends or relatives to perceive him as mad would either lend suspicion
to Jesus or make his associates look bad. On the other hand, attribution of this charge
to his enemies would merely add more fuel to the fire that the opponents of Jesus
contrived accusations against him.
CONCLUSION
The variant readings collected and explored in this chapter once again support the
observation that some scribes were not merely unthinking transmitters of the texts
placed in front of them. Beyond the changes that found their way into manuscripts by
means of mechanical error, weariness, and accident were some modifications that
appear best explained as deliberate alterations imposed by the purposeful actions of
apologetically-minded scribes. Giving attention to the textual variants adduced in this
chapter, the student of the scriptures will recognize modifications that can be classified
accurately, in terms of activity, as deliberate, and, in terms of motivation, as apologetic.
In the course of defending their text, their faith, and their Lord against pagan assault
the scribes engaged in what I have termed scribal apologetics. In so doing, they
repaired and renovated the Gospel handed down to them, making it to pagan readers
and critics more palatable, on the one hand, and more resistant to challenge, on the
other.
It is with adequate reason, then, that scribes may be thought of as more than
merely transmitters of an inherited textual tradition, but, at least on occasion, as
themselves apologists and even evangelists. In the Gospel according to the Scribes,
Jesus was portrayed emphatically as a person of reverence and not a revolutionary, a
man of sacred disposition and not a sorcerer, and as a person whose temperament was
most readily characterized not by extreme passions but sublime compassion.
4
FANATICS, FOOLS, AND FEMALES:
SCRIBES IN DEFENSE OF THE
FOLLOWERS OF JESUS
In addition to their efforts to impugn the character of Jesus, opponents of
Christianity were unrestrained in their attempts to vilify his followers.1 With
conspicuous contempt, Greco-Roman intellectuals penned harsh historical assessments, teasing parodies, and scathing polemics that portrayed adherents of the Jesus
movement as persons possessed of a blatant disregard for the law and for the public
commonwealth, and characterized by their deficiencies of morality, class, intellect, and
good humor. Practicing Christians were described variously as ethical libertines, sexual
profligates, gullible fools, plyers of the magical arts, social miscreants, and political
revolutionaries. Rumors ran rampant that in their secret gatherings they gave license
to unspeakable acts of debauchery, infanticide, and cannibalism, and this calumny
found its way into the published treatises of pagan antagonists. Female believers were
expressly targeted as unreliable witnesses, possessed, fanatical, sexual libertines,
domineering of or rebellious toward their husbands, and, in the familiar rhetoric of
Celsus, hysterical.2
The earliest extant pagan appraisals of adherents of the Christian movement took
the form of blanket condemnations and sweeping dismissals. In his correspondence
with Trajan, Pliny (62113 C.E.) notified his emperor that his interrogations, which had
featured the torture of two deaconesses, had uncovered nothing more than a
depraved and excessive superstition. In fact, his description of Christian assemblies
sounds benign, if not laudatory.
1
The literature on this subject constitutes an imposing corpus. The classic introduction
remains P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne (Paris: LArtisans du Livre, 1948), while S. Benko,
Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First Two Centuries A. D., ANRW II.23.2 (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 10551118 has become a standard introduction in English. For other
useful and informative overviews see idem, Pagan Rome and Early Christians (Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, 1984); Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984); and, most recently, Jeffrey W. Hargis, Against the
Christians: The Rise of Early Anti-Christian Polemic (New York: Peter Lang, 1999) and many of the
essays in Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, and Simon Price, eds. Apologetics in the Roman Empire:
Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
2
Cels. II.55.
141
142

They all asserted that all of their guilt and error was that they used to come together
on a certain day before daylight to sing a song with responses to Christ as a god, to
bind themselves mutually by a solemn oath, not to commit any crime, but to avoid
theft, robbery, adultery, not to break a trust or deny a deposit when they are called
for it. After these practices it was their custom to separate and then come together
again to take food but an ordinary and harmless kind, and they even gave up this
practice after my edict, when, in response to your order, I forbade associations.3
Still, Pliny was uncompromising in his condemnation of the sect. Even as he inquired
as to whether punishment should be instituted simply on account of the name or was
due because of crimes associated with the name, he did not hesitate to execute
judgment.4 Thus he informed Trajan:
In the meantime, I followed this method with those who were accused before me as
Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians. Those who confessed I asked
again and a third time, warning them of capital punishment; those who persevered
I commanded to be led off to execution, for I had no doubt that whatever it were
they believe in, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy should be punished.5
This marked disdain for the pertinacia et inflexibilis obstinatio of the Christians would find
voice again later in the writings of Marcus Aurelius (reigned 161180 C.E.).6 In
discussing the honorable way to face death, the Stoic emperor contrasted the
reasoned and dignified decision of a philosopher with the obstinate opposition
associated with the martyrdom of Christians. The Roman historians Tacitus (55117
C.E.) and Suetonius (70160 C.E.) both labeled Christianity a superstitio, and both were
aware that blame was placed upon the Christians for torching Rome during the reign
of Nero.7 Although Tacitus expressed awareness that it was in fact Nero who heaped
the responsibility upon them in order to derail suspicion of his own culpability, he
offered no sympathy for the scapegoat Christians. Instead he implied that, despite their
Pliny, Letters 10.96. The translation is that of S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity,
1069.
4
Historians continue to puzzle over this question of why Christians were persecuted. Was
it on account of the name alone, or the perceived obstinance associated with Christian
exclusivity? Or were crimes (flagitia) so directly associated with the name that to confess the faith
was to confess to a crime? The nuances of the discussion are represented well by the classic
debate that ensued between A. N. Sherwin-White and G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. For references
and a fuller discussion of this question see the next chapter.
5
Pliny, Letters 10.96. The translation is that of S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity,
1068.
6
Med. 11.3.
7
Tacitus, Annals, 15.44. Suetonius, Nero 16.2. See also the discussion of S. Benko, Pagan
Criticism of Christianity,10561068.
FANATICS, FOOLS, AND FEMALES
143
innocence regarding the fire, they were deserving of arrest due to their hatred of the
human race (odium humani generis).8
Among the surviving writings of Lucian of Samosata (115200 C.E.), moving to
a source of a different genre, is a satire whose subjecta cynic philosopher who
ultimately ended his life in a flamboyant, fiery suicide during the Olympic Games of
165 C.E.affiliated for a while with a Christian community. Though Death of Peregrinus
is satirical in both form and content, between the jabs and jest Lucian provides us with
some historically significant insights regarding pagan perceptions of Christians and
their behaviors. Lucians narrative, it should be noted, is less biography than drama,
and seeks, not so much to criticize Christianity, as to ridicule those who are selfaggrandizing. Still, it effectively delivers insights into how second-century Romans
regarded contemporary Christians.9
Early in Lucians tale, Peregrinus, the pretentious son of a wealthy man, grew
impatient for his inheritance and strangled his father. When the townspeople raised
suspicions about the matter, Peregrinus banished himself, taking to the road and
constantly moving from place to place. At this point in the narrative, Lucian recounts:
During this period he apprenticed himself to the priests and scribes of the Christians
in Palestine and became an expert in that astonishing religion they have. Naturally,
in no time at all, he had them looking like babies and had become their prophet,
Similar labels were pinned on Jews during the same time period, which serves as a
reminder that during these early years of the Jesus movement, pagans recognized little
distinction between Jews and Christians. See, e.g., the discussion of S. Benko, Pagan Criticism
of Christianity, 10561065. Benko points out that the odium humani generis Tacitus associates
with Christians in his Annals (15.44) very closely approximates the phrase he uses to describe
Jews in his Histories 5.5: Apud ipsos, fides obstinata, misericordia in promptu, sed adversus omnes alios,
hostile odium. Elsewhere in the Histories he says of them, Jews regard as profane all that we hold
sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor (Hist. 5.4; LCL, 1789) In addition,
Diodorus Siculus reports hatred of mankind as the most serious charge directed against the
Jews, and Josephus in Against Apion 2.145150 labors to defend Jews against the related
accusations of atheism and misanthropy. John G. Gager in The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes
Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1983), 5666, also provides a helpful discussion of why Jews were labeled as or for hatred of
the human race. He avers that the spiteful attitude of Romans toward Jews that initially took the
form of satire evolved into antagonism as a result of the Jewish War (6673 C.E.) and the
success of Jewish proselytism. Whether Rome issued a condescending glance, tempered
tolerance, or volatile antagonism, they did so for selfish interests. Gager emphasizes, especially,
the negative response of Roman intellectuals, the evidence for which may be found in Cicero
(Pro Flaccus, 28.69), Petronicus (Satyricon, 68.8), and Seneca (preserved in Augustine, City of God,
6.11).
9
For validation of this claim and additional insight into Lucians perception and literary
treatment of early Christians, see P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 97108; S. Benko, Pagan
Criticism of Christianity,109397; idem, Pagan Rome and Early Christians, 3053; and R. Wilken,
Christians as the Romans Saw Them.
144

leader, Head of the Synagogue, and what not all by himself. He expounded and
commented on their sacred writings and even authored a number himself. They
looked up to him as a god, made him their lawgiver, and put his name down as the
official patron of the sect, or at least vice-patron, second to that man they still
worship today, the one who was crucified in Palestine because he brought this new
cult into being.
Well, Proteus was arrested for being a Christian and thrown into jail, an event
which set him up for his future career: now he had standing, a magic aura, and the
public notice he was so passionately in love with. Once he was behind bars, the
Christians, who considered this a catastrophe, moved heaven and earth to get him
free. When this proved to be impossible they went all out to do everything else they
could for him. From the crack of dawn on you could see gray-haired widows and
orphan children hanging around the prison, and the bigwigs of the sect used to bribe
the jailers so they could spend the night with him inside. Full course dinners were
brought to him, their holy scriptures read to him and our excellent Peregrinushe
was still under that name at the timewas hailed as a latter-day Socrates. From as far
away as Asia Minor, Christian communities sent committees, paying their expenses
out of common funds, to help him with advice and consolation....
And so, because Peregrinus was in jail, money poured in from them; he picked
up a very nice income this way. You see, for one thing, the poor devils have
convinced themselves they are all going to be immortal and live forever, which makes
most of them take death lightly and voluntarily give themselves up to it. For another,
that first lawgiver of theirs persuaded them that they are all brothers the minute they
deny the Greek gods (thereby breaking our law) and take to worshiping him, the
crucified sophist himself, and to living their lives according to his rules. They scorn
all possessions without distinction and treat them as community property; doctrines
like this they accept strictly on faith. Consequently, if a professional sharper who
knows how to capitalize on a situation gets among them, he makes himself a
millionaire overnight, laughing up his sleeve at the simpletons.10
Reading Lucian as indicative of attitudes held by many of his intellectual

contemporaries, this lengthy citation greatly informs our understanding of how at least
some Roman intellectuals regarded Christians. Certainly, Lucians individual bias comes
through loud and clear. He perceived Christians to be unsophisticated and gullible,
weak-minded simpletons who, more than figuratively, cast their pearls (their money,
to be sure) before swine and who worshiped a crucified sophist. Moreover, he
painted them as a group whose most representative members were gray-haired
widows and orphan children, both of which were categories of persons who stood
outside the paterfamilias so highly celebrated by Romans. Even those members of the
cult who were viewed as persons of means are portrayed herein as fools who will soon
be parted from their money. The bigwigs of the sect, as he calls them, come across
as impulsive, even whimsical, as they bribe guards for privilege of sleeping inside the
10
Lucian, Death of Peregrinus, 1113. The translation is that of Lionel Casson, Selected Satires
of Lucian (New York: Norton, 1968), 3689.
145
cell with Peregrinus. Lucians satire, therefore, leaves the impression that Christians are
not so much generous as they are gullible, and not so much faithful as they are foolish.
If Lucian, for the sake of comparison, may be described as painting his portrait
with impressionistic strokes, those of Marcus Cornelius Fronto (100166 C.E.) must
be said to have issued from the school of stark realism. Incorporated into the Octavius
of Minucius Felix is an extended critique presented by the authors literary antagonist,
the pagan Caecilius. In it he refers to the report of his friend from Cirta, a probable
reference to Fronto, reportedly one of the foremost rhetoricians of his day. Its
indicative and comprehensive summary of the standard slanders and graphic rumors
directed against Christians once again merits quoting the passage at length.
Alreadyfor ill weeds grow apacedecay of morals grows from day to day, and
throughout the wide world the abominations of this impious confederacy multiply.
Root and branch it must be exterminated and accursed. They recognize one another
by secret signs and marks; they fall in love almost before they are acquainted;
everywhere they introduce a kind of religion of lust, a promiscuous brotherhood and
sisterhood by which ordinary fornication, under cover of a hallowed name, is
converted to incest. And thus their vain and foolish superstition makes an actual
boast of crime. For themselves, were there not some foundation of truth, shrewd
rumour would not impute gross and unmentionable forms of vice. I am told that
under some idiotic impulse they consecrate and worship the head of an ass, the
meanest of all beasts, a religion worthy of the morals which gave it birth. Others say
they actually reverence the private parts of their director and high priest, and adore
his organs as parent of their being. This may be false, but such suspicions naturally
attach to their secret and nocturnal rites. To say that a malefactor put to death for his
crimes, and wood of the death-dealing cross, are objects of their veneration is to
assign fitting altars to abandoned wretches and the kind of worship they deserve....
Their form of feasting is notorious; it is in everyones mouth, as testified by the
speech of our friend of Cirta. On the day appointed they gather at a banquet with all
their children, sisters, and mothers, people of either sex and every age. There, after
full feasting, when the blood is heated and drink has inflamed the passions of
incestuous lust, a dog which has been tied to a lamp is tempted by a morsel thrown
beyond the range of his tether to bound forward with a rush. The tale-telling light is
upset and extinguished, and in the shameless dark lustful embraces are
indiscriminately exchanged; and all alike, if not in act, yet by complicity, are involved
in incest, as anything that occurs by the act of individuals results from the common
intention.11
The value of this lengthy citation is not that it correctly represents Christian
practices during the apologetic era, but that it incorporates many of the typical
accusations directed against the followers of Christ. The figure of Caecilius in his
critique describes Christians as the dregs of society, a collection of ignorant fools and
11
Oct. IX.17. The translation is from Minucius Felix, Octavius (LCL; Translated by Gerald
H. Rendall; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960), 33739.
146
gullible women, and a rabble of blasphemous conspirators. In practice, the author

describes, they shun the light by assembling at night for periodic fasts and inhuman
feasts. Speechless in public, in private they worship the head of an ass and the genitals
of their father, venerate a condemned criminal and his cross, and initiate converts by
means of sordid rituals. While prohibiting the consumption of ritually dedicated foods,
they partake of cannibalistic victuals. Refraining from honest pleasure, they engage in
promiscuous intercourse. Disregarding the obvious superiority of Roman might, they
refuse to render reverence to the national deities or to participate in the festivals held
in their honor. Charges of ignorance, gullibility (with an emphasis on women), low
class, immorality (especially of a sexual kind), and treasonous attitude these, la
carte or in tandem, were the stock accusations directed against the followers of Jesus.
Whether or not Aelius Aristides (129181 C.E.) was referring to Christians in his
To Plato: In Defense of the Four, a paean to the golden age of Greece, is uncertain;
but his words bear mention here because they express well the concern felt by many
pagan intellectuals for their reverence of antiquity, their desire to preserve Hellenistic
culture, and their struggle to maintain their preferred way of life. At one point he
exclaims:
They deceive like flatterers, but they are insolent, as if they are of higher rank, since
they are involved in the two most extreme and opposite evils, baseness and
willfulness, behaving like those impious men of Palestine. For the proof of the
impiety of those people is that they do not believe in the higher powers. And these
men in a certain fashion have defected from the Greek race, or rather from all that
is higher....They are the most useless of all in helping to accomplish anything which
is necessary. But they are cleverest of all at housebreaking, in upsetting those within
and bringing them into conflict with one another, and in claiming that they can take
care of everything....12
Even if, as Benko entertains and as Behr asserts, Aelius Aristides was directing these
remarks to Cynic philosophers, the reference to those impious men of Palestine
most certainly refers either to Christians or to Jews with whom they were associated
and confused.13 Behr is convinced that he is referring here to Christians, since they
were more frequently persecuted during this time. Moreover, Behr points out, Polycarp
was martyred in Smyrna, the home of Aelius Aristides, sometime after the middle of
12
To Plato: In Defense of the Four, Sections 67173 (selections). For the translation see
P. Aelius Aristides, The Complete Works (Translated by Charles A. Behr; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986),
275, and Behrs useful notes on 460, n. 1, 477, n. 745. Cf. the translation and comments of S.
Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 109798. For more extensive biography on Aelius
Aristides, see C. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert,
1968).
13
147
the second century,14 lending credence to the contention that he would have more
likely had Christians in mind in identifying them as impious ones from Palestine.15
In either case, his words offer one more illustration for how a conservative pagan
intellectual of his era regarded the followers of Christ.
Celsus joined Aelius Aristides in his conservative devotion to the past and his
appraisal of Christians as impious. His purpose in writing Alhqh\
/
v Lo/gov (ca.
177180) was to commend the perennial wisdom of the ages to those who were, in his
mind, misguided in pursuing this novel religious movement based on the life and
teachings of Jesus. Much more will be said about Celsus below in the context of
discussing textual variants. For now, let it suffice to say that Celsus debased
Christianity for its lack of an adequate philosophical foundation, Christ for his
propensity for magic and deceit, and Christians for their lack of intellect, courage, and
moral scruples. One of the characteristics that most distinguishes Celsus from his
contemporaries is his informed critique of Christianity. As has been established
throughout this work and will be noted again below, Celsus based many of his attacks
on an acquaintance with the sacred writings of the Christians.
Porphyry, toowith an even greater measure than Celsusdemonstrated in his
polemic writings against Christianity a high degree of familiarity with both Testaments
of the Christian scriptures. For studies such as this one, it is especially regrettable that
so much of his Against the Christians has been lost, undoubtedly destroyed by Christians
themselves. Were we to possess the complete work, we would know extensively more
about how pagans read, understood, and took exception to the Christian scriptures,
and we would have at hand much more data to analyze in reference to the thesis of this
present work. What we do possess of his work, though, is enough to show clearly that
he scrutinized the scriptures closely and identified inconsistencies of history, fact, or
logic as reason to dismiss the new religion. Moreover, he announced that while Jesus
himself proved to be a man of divine character, his disciples had miscarried his
teachings and erroneously reformulated their religion. Porphyrys assaults, as we shall
see, were aimed at the Bible and those who believed in it.16
14
Although it seems clear that Polycarp was martyred at the age of 86, and Eusebius (Hist.
eccl. 15.1) reports that his death occurred during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the precise year
of his execution remains disputed. T. D. Barnes (A Note On Polycarp, JTS 18 (1967), 4337)
finds reason to place his martyrdom as early as 156, while H. Gregoire and P. Orgels (La
vritable date du martyre de Polycarpe (23 fvr. 177) et le Corpus Polycarpianum, AnBoll 69
(1951), 138) locate it in the year 177. Herbert Musurillo, basing his contention on the premise
that Ignatius final trip through Smyrna coincided with the last years of the reign of Trajan when
Polycarp was already bishop, favors a date sometime during the last quarter of the second
century. For the discussion see idem, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1972), xiii.
15
P. Aelius Aristides, Complete Works, 477, n. 745.
16
For a useful overview see Milton V. Anastos, Porphyrys Attack on the Bible, in The
Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan (Luitpold Wallach, editor;
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1966), 421450. Although this article suffers from the
148
Such were the chief attitudes and issues raised by these second and third century
pagans who wrote to discredit the Jesus movement and its adherents. In turn, Christian
apologists in their writings framed carefully crafted responses to many of these same
points. As we shall discuss below in greater detail, Athenagoras defended believers
against attacks of atheism, cannibalism, and Oedipal intercourse. In the work of
Minucius Felix, the character Octavius not only answered the slanderous charges
Caecilius attached to Christians, but persuaded him to join the ranks of believers. Of
course, Origen attempted to respond point by point to the libel of Celsus, and, along
with Tatian, elevated Christian practices that were ascetic in nature. Other apologists,
too, as we shall see, sought to offer direct rebuttal to pagan accusations that the
followers of Jesus consisted of illiterate fools, drunken and perverse fanatics, and
gullible females. Mindful of this, we now turn to the textual tradition, to see if and how
this thesisthat the scribal tradition manifest in the Gospels at points reflects
awareness of and concern for this critic-apologist discourselocates evidence therein.
VARIANT READINGS
Of those variant readings in the textual tradition of the canonical gospels that in
content deal with the followers of Jesus, it can be argued that a fair number show
evidence of apologetically-driven influence, i.e. modifications that result in readings
that reflect apologetic themes or strategies, or strengthen typical apologetic arguments.
For purposes of convenience and organization, these readings will be considered under
the following headings: Fanatics, Fools, and Females. This chapter will conclude with
an examination of how these themes appear in the disputed endings of Marks Gospel
(Mark 16:920). I intend to proffer and support the contention that much of the
content located in the various expanded conclusions to our earliest Gospel reflect
apologetic strategy and content.
REGARDING THE FANATICS WHO FOLLOWED JESUS
Christians were damned if they did and damned if they did not. On the one hand,
they were condemned for not attending and participating in public feasts and festivals,
occasions that were in nature both civic and religious (pagan). As we shall discuss in
greater detail below, Celsus and Aelius Aristides provide testimony that their absence
was widely viewed as a form of anti-social truancy and even atheism.17 In terms of their
writers attribution of the pagan arguments located in Macarius Magnes directly to Porphyry,
the study retains the merit of contributing insight to the authentic fragments derived from
Jerome and Augustine and in his overall treatment of Porphyrys critique of the Bible.
17
Celsus pleaded for Christian participation in pagan festivals. He argued that if, as
Christians believed, pagan gods were only idols, what harm could there be in taking part in the
festivals? If, on the other hand, they were in fact daemons or divine powers, then should proper
homage not be paid them, since they must also extend from the common deity acknowledged
149
withdrawal from public celebrations, the charge was for the most part valid. Tertullian,
in fact, forcefully advocated that Christians boycott pagan festivals.18 On the other
hand, Christians were accused of engaging in unbridled excess when it came to their
own religious festivals. As we noted earlier, charges of cannibalism, incest, and
drunkenness heaped upon believers have survived in the literary pogroms penned by
pagan critics.19
Apologists, in turn, took their opportunity to defend themselves by explanation
and even counter-claim. For their monotheistic devotion and purity of life Aristides
lauded Christians as the most virtuous of persons, and even contended that the world
continued to exist because of the prayers of Christians.20 Athenagoras of Athens took
it upon himself to refute false charges of atheism, cannibalism, and Oedipal incest.
Christians, he reported, opposed exposure or child-murder, and engaged in sex solely
for the purpose of procreation and not to satisfy any lustful appetite. Indeed, he
praised virginity as among the most polished fruits of Christian ethics, and termed
remarriage a decent adultery.21 In the narrative apology of Minucius Felix, Octavius
insisted, Our feasts are conducted not only with modesty but in sobriety. We do not
indulge in delicacies or prolong conviviality with wine, but check our cheerful spirits
by the sobriety of our manners.22 Clement of Alexandria felt an obligation to address
the apostles advice to young Timothy to use a little wine for your stomachs sake
(I Tim. 5:23) by cautioning against over-indulgence and strongly advocating
temperance.23 Water, he specified, remained the beverage of choice for the thirsty.
Moreover, he emphasized that it was a mixed cupwine diluted with waterthat
constituted the formula for the sacred chalice. Most especially, he warned against youth
consuming wine, lest it fire their libidinous impulses. In short, although he did not
insist on total abstinence, Clement urged that reason ought to chaperone the
consumption of wine, lest conviviality imperceptibly degenerate into drunkenness.24
Tatian, taking the moral high ground, mocked pagan festivals as demonic and
shameful.25 Justin insisted that evil demons were responsible for plagiarizing the
Christian Eucharist and ordering a similar rite to be performed by the Mithraic
mysteries, and he drained a well of ink describing in detail the sacraments of Baptism
and Eucharist.26
by all, even Christians? Cels. VIII.21, 24. See also Aelius Aristides, To Plato: In Defense of the
Four, 67173. For an example of the charge of atheism directed at Christians, see Athenagoras,
Leg. III.1.
18
Tertullian, Spect., 24.
19
E.g., Athenagoras, Leg. III.1; Theophilus, Ad Auto. III.4; and Minucius Felix, Oct. IX.17.
20
Ap. 1516.
21
Ap. 33, ANF 2, 146 f.
22
Oct. XXXI.5.
23
Paed., II.2.
24
Paed. II.2, ANF 244.
25
Or. 22.1.
26
Ap. I.6566.
150
Thus the apologists reacted to pagan moral criticism against their behavior.
Widespread as these topics appear in their writings, it is evident that concerns with
questions of sobriety, promiscuity, and piety were foremost in their minds and vital to
their arguments. If the thesis of this work is to any extent correct, then, we would
expect to locate within the textual tradition scribal activity that reflected such concerns.
Following is a discussion of the variant readings that, I believe, bear witness to how
this apologetic motif influenced some of the scribes as they copied and transmitted the
Gospel texts. Among these texts, it will be observed, are some particularly difficult and
highly disputed textual problems. Let us begin, however, with less thorny matters.
Let us begin our textual considerations with the fairly straightforward
modification located in Luke 5:33.27 The pericope in which this verse occurs concerns
the issue of fasting. It seems that certain interlocutors, presumably the Pharisees and
scribes referred to in 5:30, wish to challenge the devotional and eating practices of
Jesus followers.28 In contrast with the disciplined prayer lives and pious dietary habits
of both the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptizer, who purportedly fast
frequently and offer prayers (nhsteu/ousin pukna_ kai\ deh/seiv poiou=ntai), they
challenge, but yours eat and drink (oi9 de\ soi\ e0sqi/ousin kai\ pi/nousin). The
Pharisees here appear to be castigating the disciples of Jesus for their disregard of
devout dietary conventions. In tone and language they sound much like the pagan
critics who accused believers who were their contemporaries with being gluttons and
drunkards. It is interesting in light of this context, then, that Bezae, along with the Old
Latin Codex Palatinus (e), supplants the phrase yours eat and drink with the
innocuous words, your disciples do not do these things (maqhtai/ sou ou0den
toutw=n poiou=sin).29 Such bland editorialization seems out of character for a witness
so notorious for its garish embellishments. That is, it is not consistent with the stylistic
tendency most commonly associated with the scribal activity preserved in Codex
27
The verse also includes a minor modification not directly relevant to this discussion, in
which dia ti (Why?) appears to have been inserted into some manuscripts, thereby changing
the statement of the Pharisees into a question. B. Metzger blithely suggests that this may have
resulted from copyists who recalled the parallel text in Mark 2:18. Textual Commentary, 138.
28
In Matthew, it is the disciples of John who pose this question. According to Mark, the
disciples of John and the Pharisees together bring the challenge. Compare Matthew 9:1417 and
Mark 2:1822. Moreover, John 3:26 portrays the disciples of John as envious of those who
follow Jesus, and, in the view of Plummer, would have been ripe to criticize. He further suggests
that the fast days that are being debated are Mondays and Thursdays, which were voluntary and
not obligatory. He also indicates that poiei=sqai deh/seiv in 1 Timothy 2:1 refers to prayers at
fixed times according to rule, a practice Jesus followers did not seem to respect. For additional
useful exegetical insights see A. Plummer, Luke, ICC, 161.
29
The fifth-century Codex Palatinus is an African Old Latin manuscript consisting of
portions of the four Gospels in the sequence Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. B. Metzger
suggests that Augustine probably used a text of this sort prior to 400 C.E. See B. Metzger, Early
Versions, 297, and idem, Text of the New Testament, 73.
151
Bezae, namely free expansion.30 This clue suggests that the scribe responsible for this
change had more on his mind than elements of style, quite probably apologetic
interests. Notice that this change in wording suspends the very phraseologyeating
and drinkingfor which pagans criticized Christians. By recasting the contrast from
Ours fast and pray while Yours eat and drink to Ours fast and pray while
Yours do not, the scribe has transformed an accusation of excess and gluttony into
a more defensible question of piety and distinction.
Another variant reading related to fasting is located at Mark 9:29. At this point in
Marks narrative Jesus is explaining to his disciples why he was able to perform an
exorcism that they were not able to bring off. This kind, he specifies, can be driven
out only by means of prayer (proseuxh|=). So read the best witnesses. Scribal activity
reflected in some manuscripts (P45vid 2 A C D L W Q Y f1.13 33 Maj lat syh co),
however, has embellished Jesus explanation by adding the words, and fasting (kai\
nhstei/a|). Both B. Metzger and B. Ehrman identify this gloss as one of the few
recognizable traces of the influence of ascetic Christianity on the scribal transmission.31
We should not overlook the fact, though, that some features of asceticism correspond
closely to apologetic argumentation. Tertullian, for example, contrasts the pietistic
behaviors of Christians and pagans during a time of summer drought. He writes:
...when summer days keep away the winter rain and men become anxious about the
years crops, this is your procedure: you eat your fill each day and are straightway
ready to eat again; you keep the baths, taverns, and brothels constantly busy; you
offer to Jupiter the so-called Aquilicia; you announce barefoot processions for the
people; you investigate the sky near the Capitol; you watch for clouds from the
paneled temple ceilings while you turn your back on heaven and God himself.
Whereas we, grown lean with fastings and emaciated from all forms of self-restraint,
abstaining from all the enjoyments of life, rolling in sackcloth and ashes, assail heaven
with eager importunity and touch Gods heart. And, when we have wrung from Him
divine compassion, Jupiter gets all the honor!32
Clement of Alexandria, too, signaled the vanity of allowing ones earthy passions to
control ones directions and pursuits. He argued that God brought to nought the
30
See for substantiation of this claim, D. C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian
Manuscript and Its Text (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 28486; J.
N. Birdsall, After Three Centuries of the Study of Codex Bezae: The Status Quaestionis,, in D.
C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux, eds. Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1996), xixxxx, esp. xxv; and most especially Michael W. Holmes, Codex Bezae as a
Recension of the Gospels, also in Parker and Amphoux, Codex Bezae, 123160. Here Holmes
calls attention to the statistically-supported observation that the so-called improvements to
the text contained in Codex Bezae have been accomplished almost entirely by the addition and
substitution of material, and only very seldom by omission (154, cf. also n. 138) .
31
B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 101; B. Ehrman, The Text of the Gospels at the End
of the Second Century, Codex Bezae, Lunel Colloquium, 121.
32
Ap. 40.1415. ANF, 104105.
152
labors of lust, such as obsession with money or winning or glory; the concupiscent
craving after women or boys; gluttony; or profligacy.33 Clement, though, it should be
noted, advocated moderation, not abstinence. He believed, for example, that believers
were to be responsible in marriage, propagate children, and live well.34 Justin used
fasting in a symbolic sense, identifying the nature of true fasting as clothing the
naked, feeding the hungry, liberating the oppressed, and otherwise seeking after
justice.35
At points, then, the line between ascetic and apologetic themes draws quite thin.
A scribe more informed by apologetic discourse than ascetic practices could have also
been inclined to offer just such an embellishment to his exemplar. In trying to offer
some explanation for the impulse that prompted this scribal modification, then,
perhaps we are wiser to assert a lesser claim that possesses the virtue of greater
probability. Whether the scribe(s) responsible for the variant reading attached to Mark
9:29 was prompted by an austere piety or a defensive posture, it seems evident that we
have here an instance of the deliberate corruption of his exemplar by a scribe who was
both willing and able to make the text say what he read.
Let us now briefly shift our attention to the Fourth Gospel. The text of John
6:5556 appears in N-A27 as follows:
55 h( ga\r sa&rc mou a0lhqh/v e0stin brw=siv kai\ to\ ai[ma& mou a0lhqh/v e0stin
po/siv. 56 o9 trw&gwn mou th\n sa&rka kai/ pi/nwn mou to\ ai[ma e0n e0moi\ me/nei
ka0gw_ e0n au0tw|= .
55
For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He who eats my flesh
and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Commentators offer no serious challenge to this constituting the original Johannine

text.36 That makes even more interesting, therefore, the modifications produced by the
scribe responsible for the majuscule Bezae. Located in Codex D, along with a pair of
Old Latin texts (a, ff2), appears the following insert:
kaqw_v e0n e0moi o9 path\r ka0gw_ e0n tw|= patri/. a0mh\n a0mh\n le/gw u9mi=n e0a&n mh\
la&bhte to_ sw=ma tou= ui9ou= tou= a)nqrw&pou w(v to_n a!rton th=v zwh=v ou0k
e!xete zwh\n e0n au0tw|=.
33
Strom. III.9.3. FC, 295.

Strom. III.6.46.1. FC, 284.
35
Dial. 15. ANF, I, 202. So also Origen in Cels. VIII.55. See H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra
Celsum, 494.
36
Verse 55 contains only a minor variation; some manuscripts substitute the adverbial
a0lhqw=v for the adjective a0lhqh/v. The variant more germane to this work involves a gloss that
almost certainly is the product of the scribe responsible for transcribing the Bezae majuscule.
This will be discussed below.
34
153
Just as the Father is in me, so too am I in the Father. Truly, truly I say to you, unless
you receive the body of the Son of Man as the bread of life, you do not have life in
him.
Bruce Metzger is content to describe Bezaes gloss as a homiletic expansion.37

Raymond Brown echoes this view.38 Still, more seems to be at stake here than benign
embellishment. For one thing, both scholars fail to consider Bezaes modification of
this verse in light of the variant reading in the previous verse. Codex D is alone in
omitting the phrase, kai\ to\ ai[ma& mou a0lhqh/v e0stin po/siv, and my blood is true
drink. Of course, it is possible to attribute the deletion to homoeoteuleton.39 One
could reasonably argue that, in the process of moving from exemplar to manuscript
and back, the eye of a weary scribe might have wandered from brw=siv to po/siv, and
therefore prompted this sin of omission. E. Haenchen also acknowledges this
possibility.40
Yet, the coincidence of the substance that is omitted, particularly in light of the
clearly intentional modification in the following verse, easily provokes suspicion. What
the wielder of the stylus eliminated was a draft of blood! This editorial gesture seems
blatantly apologetic, particularly in light of the stock accusations of many pagan critics
that Christians participated in cannibalistic rituals.41 Now, to be sure, the scribe did not
extract all of the references to drinking blood; for instance, reference to blood remains
in both 6:53 and 6:56. To John 6:56, notice however, the copyist did attach a relatively
sophisticated conceptualization of sacramental union that, so to speak, fleshed out his
pietistic understanding of the carnal imagery. Although Haenchen more mildly explains
this interpolation as an attempt to mitigate the offensive mystical tone of this section,42
it seems conspicuous that, in John 6:53, Bezae joins with Vercellensis (a) against the
rest of the tradition in replacing fa&ghte (eat) with la&bhte (receive), once again
mollifying language that could easily be interpreted as cannibalistic.
37

R. Brown, John, AB, 29, 283. Browns phrase is a homiletic Western addition.
39
M.-J. Lagrange, e.g., is of this opinion. See his vangile selon Saint Jean (8th edition; Paris:
Gabalda, 1948), 185.
40
Both Ernst Haenchen, John 1, Hermeneia (Trans. Robert W. Funk: Philadelphia: Fortress,
1984), 295 and C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (Second Edition; Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1978), 299 subscribe to this explanation of omission by homoeoteleuton.
41
For a highly useful study informed by both patristic studies and anthropological theories
of labeling, see Andrew McGowan, Eating People: Accusations of Cannibalism Against
Christians in the Second Century, JECS 2/3 (1994), 413442. Here McGowan challenges the
mainstream notion that the accusations of cannibalism directed against Christians resulted from
a pagan misunderstanding of their eucharistic celebrations. Instead, he astutely argues, the
charge of cannibalism stands in antiquity as one of the standard labels to attach to an
individual or group in order to identify them as deviant. I find his discussion compelling and
highly informative, though I am inclined to believe that, at least on the part of some, especially
the pagan populace, there remained the contention that Christians really were cannibals.
42
E. Haenchen, John 1, 2956.
38
154
In fact, this verse was so singled out and interpreted by the pagan critic whose
polemic was preserved by Macarius. This anonymous critic labeled beastly as well
as absurd Christian eucharistic practice as it was prescribed in John 6:53. He said:
A famous saying of the Teacher is this one: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my
blood, you will have no life in yourselves. This saying is not only beastly and absurd;
it is more absurd than absurdity itself and more beastly than any beast: that a man
should savor human flesh or drink the blood of a member of his own family or
peopleand that by doing this he should obtain eternal life!43
Thus, we see in this pagan critic identified by Macarius as Porphyry himself an

accusation of cannibalism traceable directly to this verse. The Christian antagonist, in
fact, heightens his polemic by contrasting the Eucharist with tales of Thyestes banquet
and others like it so familiar in antiquity. What is different in these accounts, he points
out, is that diners consumed human flesh unknowingly and thus unwillingly;
Christians, in contrast, voluntarily engage in cannibalistic practice. The writer even
anticipates a defense on the basis of symbolic or allegorical meaning when he asserts:
And so what does this saying mean? Even if it carries some hidden meaning, that
does not excuse its appearance, which seems to suggest that men are less than
animals. No tale designed to fool the simple-minded is crueler or more deceptive
[than this myth of the Christians].44
The anticipation of the standard Christian reply suggests that both sides of this debate
had become commonplace by the time of Macarius. Much earlier, we find evidence of
these accusations in Tacitus,45 Justin,46 Tatian,47 Athenagoras,48 Theophilus,49
Tertullian,50 and Minucius Felix.51 One of the fullest expressions of this theme is
located in Octavius, in these words attributed to Fronto, as he relates this description
of the Christian rite of initiation:
And now, the stories told about the initiation of their novices: they are as detestable
as they are notorious. An infant covered with a dough crust to deceive the
unsuspecting is placed beside the person to be initiated into their sacred rites. This
43
Frag. 69. Macarius, Apocrit. III.18. Translation is that of R. J. Hoffmann, Porphyrys Against
the Christians, 49.
44
Apocrit. III.18, cont. Again, the translation is that of R. J. Hoffmann, Porphyrys Against the
Christians, 4950.
45
Ann. 15.44.
46
Ap. I.26, II.12.
47
Or. 25.
48
Leg. 3.
49
Ad Auto. 3.45, 15.
50
Ap. 7; Ad Nat. I.15.
51
Oct. 9, cf. 30.
155
infant is killed at the hands of the novice by wounds inflicted unintentionally and
hidden from his eyes, since he has been urged on as if to harmless blows upon the
surface of the dough. The infants bloodoh, horriblethey sip up eagerly; its limbs
they tear to pieces, trying to outdo each other; by this victim they are leagued
together; by being privy to this crime they pledge themselves to mutual silence. These
sacred rites are more shocking than any sacrilege.52
Whether pagans were genuinely confused about Christian sacramental practices and
misunderstood the ritual language, or were consciously heaping upon believers stock
accusations intended to bring out the differences between Christians and the
mainstream pagan populace, second-century polemic literature indicates that
cannibalism was a commonplace charge associated with the Jesus movement, and is
one that Christian apologists expended great energy to refute.
Returning to the textual considerations, then, we should not miss the fact that the
activity reflected in these variants produced the simultaneous effects of eliminating
language offensive to pagans (and quite possibly some nascent converts), on the one
hand, and, on the other, offering a carefully crafted codicil clearly intended to clarify,
if not sanctify, this analogy of physical consumption with spiritual union.53 In light of
pagan depictions of the bloody victuals that purportedly graced the table of the early
Christians, it seems a reasonable conjecture that an awareness on the part of some
thinking scribe to pagan misconceptions and rumors regarding the Christian Eucharist
and apologetic writers attempts at explanation may well have influenced him to
wilfully alter the sacred text that lay open before him.
Such regard for the Eucharist factors also into the analysis of one of the most
notorious and complex text-critical problems distributed among the canonical Gospels.
Textual scholars turn with endless fascination and continuing consternation to Lukes
account of Jesus last supper with the Twelve to explore the variant reading located in
52
Oct. IX.56. The translation here is from Tertullian: Apologetical Works and Minucius Felix:
Octavius (Translated by R. Arbesmann, et al., FC 10; Washington, DC: Catholic University of
America Press, 1950), 337. The Latin text reads as follows: Iam de initiandis tirunculis fabula tam
detestanda quam nota est. Infans farre contectus, ut decipiat incautos, adponitur ei qui sacris inbuatur. Is infans
a tirunculo farris superficie quasi ad innoxios ictus provocato caecis occultisque vulneribus occiditur. Huiu, pro
nefas! sitienter sanguinem lambunt, huius certatim membra dispertiunt, hac foederantur hostia, hac conscientia
sceleris ad silentium mutuum pignerantur. Haec sacra sacrilegiis omnibus taetriora. Et de convivio notum est,
passim omnes locuntur; id etiam Cirtensis nostri testatur oratio.... This text is derived from G. Quispel,
M. Minucii Felicis Octavius (Tweede Druk; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 1920. Other critical editions
include, in German, J. Lindauer, M. Minucius Felix: Octavius (Mnchen: Ksel-Verlag, 1964) and,
in English, A. D. Simpson, M. Minucii Felicis Octavius: Prolegomena, Text and Critical Notes (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1938).
53
I invite further comparison of these reflections with the discussions of eating, drinking,
and Eucharist located in Clement of Alexandria, Paed., II.12.
156
Luke 22:19b20.54 The tradition has transmitted six distinct forms of this eucharistic
narrative.
Most of the discussion focuses on the two major strands of transmission, the
familiar longer reading and the shorter reading (sans 19b20).55 In the mind of J.
Fitzmyer, the longer reading is not only the best attested (P75 A B C K L T W X D
Q P Y 063 f1,13, many of the minuscules and versional witnesses), but also gains
credibility on the basis of preference for the most difficult reading (lectio difficilior). This
longer reading conveys a table paradigm of cup-bread-cup. The bulk of the so- called
Western witnesses (D, ita, d, ff2, I, l) transmits a shorter reading that omits verses 19b20
and thus describes the table distribution as cup-bread. This abbreviated Western
paradigm is located also in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and Didache 9.23. In their 1881 Greek
text, Westcott and Hort favored this truncated reading and bracketed verses 19b20
as a Western Non-Interpolation. Their view carried the discipline for decades,56 until
eventually the pendulum of scholarly opinion swung back, and the verses were
reinstated as original by Kurt Aland in N-A26. Snodgrass also spoke up for the
originality of the longer text, submitting that scribal deletion was prompted by
concern regarding the second cup.57 Members of the UBSGNT committee were
divided on their appraisal of this text. A minority sided with Westcott and Hort in
favoring the shorter text and identifying it as a Western non-interpolation; whereas
the majority affirmed the primacy of the longer reading on the basis of the external
testimony and ease of attributing omission of verses to transcriptional accident or
misunderstanding.58 Current scholarship remains divided on the matter.
Among those who favor the shorter text as original, Bart Ehrman constructs
the most compelling case. He challenges those scholars who on the sole basis of its
limited external support abruptly dismiss the shorter reading. To do so, he contends,
misses the insight of Horts genius on this point. Horts Western Non-Interpolations
consisted precisely of those variant readings characterized, in part, by their isolation
in the Western tradition. What distinguished them within that tradition, however,
was their dramatic brevity. For the textual tradition that was almost invariably
expansionist to advance the shorter reading was striking to the point of earning it
careful consideration on the basis of internal validation. Hort argued for nothing more,
54
B. Metzgers Textual Commentary (17377) provides a useful summary of the issues and
reproduces a clear table, adapted from Kenyon and Legg, detailing in a parallel format the
multitude of distinct readings. Traditionally, six separate readings are outlined. These need not
be repeated here. For lucid historical background and commentary related to this pericope, see
J. Fitzmyer, Luke XXXIV, 13861403.
55
As B. Ehrman explains in his article, The Cup, The Bread, and the Salvific Effect of
Jesus Death in LukeActs, in Eugene H. Lovering, ed., Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar
Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 577, n. 4.
56
See, e.g., A. Plummer, Luke, ICC, 49697.
57
Snodgrass, JBL, 374.
58
157
and urged nothing less. Ehrman, on this basis, insists on weighing this problem in light
of intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities.
In dealing with intrinsic probabilities, he devotes the bulk of his argument to the
theological consideration of the longer text.59 For Ehrman, the most telling point here
is that the atonement motif associated with the longer reading occurs nowhere else in
Luke, in either the Gospel or Acts.60 Not only does Luke not portray Jesus death as
an atoning sacrifice, the evangelist, in the words of Ehrman, has actually gone out of
his way to eliminate just such a theology from the narrative he inherited from his
predecessor, the Gospel of Mark.61 In support of this claim, he points to Lukes
modification of two references in Marks narrative that indicate the saving effects of
Jesus death. Dealing with the first, where Mark quotes the declaration of Jesus, The
Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for
many (Mark 10:45), Luke omits this verse altogether.62
The second reference consists of two distinct actions: the rending of the temple
veil and the confession of the centurion. In Ehrmans view, these two events for Mark
work in tandem to point to the atoning work of the cross. The ripping of the curtain
marks the end of any requirement of an additional sacrifice to approach the deity; in
the death of Jesus God has razed the barriers of access between heaven and earth. The
confession of the centurion serves, then, to punctuate this saving event. Truly this
man was the Son of God (Mark 15:39), he declares, and, in so doing, connects
profession of faith, the key to salvation, with the death of Jesus. So is the death of
Jesus according to Mark.
Luke, though, adapts both of these events to his own theology. First of all, Luke
places the tearing of the curtain prior to the death of Jesus (Luke 23:45). For the
evangelist, this dramatic event symbolizes something different than it does for his
Synoptic counterparts. The veil is ripped not as a sign of perpetual access to divine
mercy, but as an expression of divine judgment. Moreover, the evangelist alters the cry
of the centurion from a confession of faith to a declaration of innocence (Luke 23:47).
Lukes Jesus dies, then, not as an atoning sacrifice, but as a casualty of injustice. In
death he is a victim, nothing more. It is in resurrection that he receives vindication and
gains victory. Such is the Gospel according to Luke.
For Ehrman, what this means is that Luke never portrays the death of Jesus as an
atonement for sin. And what this means for the textual conundrum presently before
us is that only the shorter reading corresponds to Lukes theology of the cross. In
59
B. Ehrman recognizes that difficulties in vocabulary and style belong to the longer
reading, but defers in large measure on these points to Joel Green, The Death of Jesus, Gods
Servant, in Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus, ed. Dennis Sylva (Bonner biblische Beitrge
73; Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990) 4.
60
Recognizing that Acts 20:28 is frequently cited in contradiction to this point, B. Ehrman
treats this text with some care. See idem, The Cup, The Bread and Salvific Effect, 58284.
61
B. Ehrman, The Cup, The Bread and Salvific Effect, 579.
62
But see the suggestion of Joel Marcus cited in B. Ehrman, The Cup, The Bread, and
Salvific Effect, 580, n. 13.
158
Ehrmans judgment, the longer reading emphasizes precisely the atoning relevance of
Jesus death. In his own words:
How could Luke have blatantly eliminated from the accounts of Mark any notion of
Jesus death as an atoning sacrifice (Mark 10:45; 15:39) only to assert such a notion
here in yet stronger terms? The conclusion appears unavoidable: Luke has either
constructed his narrative with blinding inconsistency, or he has provided us with a
shortened version of Jesus last meal with his disciples.63
Turning, then, to transcriptional considerations, Ehrman declares, In point of

fact, no one has been able to provide a convincing explanation for how the shorter
text came into existence if the longer text is original.64 To the often adduced argument
that a scribe either confused or concerned over the appearance of two cups simply
eliminated one of them out of his own preference, he once again conjures the spirit of
Hort to overturn the theory. Hort, he points out, wondered why a scribe concerned
with harmony or precision would have expunged the second cup rather than the first,
since it was the first cup that was problematic, particularly in light of the eucharistic
formula of 1 Corinthians (11:2326). Also unaccounted for, he adds, is the omission
of verse 19b. Since here the cup is not yet mentioned, a scribe concerned with the
second cup would have had no reason to subtract reference to the bread.65 Thus, he
declares, ...it is well-nigh impossible to explain the shorter text of Luke 22:1920 if
the longer text is original, but it is not at all difficult to explain for an interpolation of
the disputed words into Lukes account of the last supper.66
Ehrman cinches his argument with an appeal to the orthodox corruption of
scripture. Here, his premise is that scribes who subscribed to proto-orthodox beliefs
lengthened the text as they did, i.e. they inserted or manufactured 19b20, out of antidocetic concerns. Lukes account of the last supper was vulnerable to the docetic
portrayal of a divine Christ tranquil in the face of his execution; but the interpolated
passage reflecting the formula of 1 Corinthians 11:2326 emphasized both the salvific
effect of his death (given for you) and that his death was physical in nature (...in my
63

65
Joachim Jeremias attempted to deal with this and other similar concerns by positing that
scribes often omitted Christian liturgical passages from the text in order to preserve these
formulae from the public forum and to safeguard them from abuse by non-believers who might
wish to apply them toward magical ends. In this case, verse 19a was left intact to function as a
kind of liturgical caret, a signal to Christian insiders regarding what ensued at the meal. See
idem, Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 87106 for further details regarding this theory identified as
disciplina arcani. B. Ehrman, rightly in my mind, refutes Jeremias on this point. See B. Ehrman,
The Cup, The Bread and Salvific Effect, 588, especially n. 41.
66
64
159
blood poured out for you).67 As further evidence he points to how both Tertullian
and Irenaeus drew upon the concepts reflected, among the locations in the Gospels,
within this textual variant to refute Marcions heretical docetic christology.68 Thus it is
clear in his own mind that the shorter text is original, and that the longer text
represents a proto-orthodox interpolation designed to thwart docetic heretics engaged
in doctrinal polemic.
Ehrmans arguments I find compelling, insofar as they treat the two forms of the
variants he isolates. Yet, I wonder if there is not more to be discovered here by more
closely examining the additional forms of variation related to this text.69 In chart form
B. Metzger outlines a total of six forms of variation. The first column he labels the
Majority Text, by which he means the consensus of P75 A B C K L T W X D Q P
Y 063 f1.13 vg syrpal copsa,bo arm geo, all the minuscules, and the remainder of the Latin
versions that do not appear elsewhere. The second column consists of the reading
attested by D ita, d, ff2, I, l and reports the shorter reading that Ehrman believes to be
original. The third column includes the other Old Latin witnesses (itb,e) and, except
for verse order (19 is placed before 17 so that the bread prefaces the cup), follows the
reading in Bezae almost verbatim.70 The fourth, fifth, and sixth columns report Syriac
readings rendered in Greek, specifically and in order those of the Curetonian, Sinaitic,
and Peshitta. Since the Greek form of the Syriac is conjectural, little can be made of
certain minor grammatical differences.71 What we can make something of, however,
are features that bear the mark of one textual tradition over against the other, such as
parallel word order, deletions, or expansions.
67
Ehrman does not mention here that, in addition, the reference to the new covenant
could be taken as representative of the kind of anti-Judaic bias frequently associated with the
Western text, especially Codex Bezae. It would be a surprise to some extent that, if a phrase
so well-suited to his purposes had been located in his exemplar, the scribe of Bezae would have
dropped it. In reference to this bias see E. J. Epp, Theological Tendency, esp. 41164.
68
B. Ehrman, The Cup, The Bread and Salvific Effect, 590. Here he cites Tertullian, Adv.
Marc. 40 and Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV 33.2.
69
The chart appearing in B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 175, adapted from Frederic G.
Kenyon and S. C. E. Legg, The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. by Roderic Dunkerly (London,
1937), 284 f., greatly aids the analysis of this complex constellation of readings. For the most
thorough delineation of the textual witnesses see IGNTP, Luke, II, 176178.
70
Especially noteworthy is the fact that, in those places shared by the Bezae reading and
that of the Majority text (1719a), where Bezae differs from the Majority text, the reading
reported in column three most frequently follows Bezae. The only exceptions are the insertions
of an article and a conjunction, both of which could be explained as either the result of Latin
translation or the perceived grammatical improvements of an idiosyncratic scribe.
71
For example, in their comparison of verse 19, where the first three columns report the
participle, le/gwn, all three Syriac columns are rendered by the imperfect, e!legen. But is this
really accurate or useful? Syriac and Greek tense systems differ considerably. For the problems
see Sebastian P. Brock, Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek, in B. Metzger, Early
Versions, 8398.
160
In such a comparison of the Curetonian, Sinaitic, and Peshitta versions to the

Majority text and Bezae group, the following traits may be observed. First of all, all
three Syriac texts invert the verse order from both Bezae and the Majority text in such
a way that each introduces bread before cup.72 Secondly, both the Curetonian and
Sinaitic witnesses in their treatment of verse 18 mirror the word order of the Bezae
group reading rather than that of the Majority text. Specifically, the telling elements are
that the Syriac witnesses here follow Bezaes phrasing a0po\ tou= nu=n ou0 mh\ pi/w in lieu
of the word order located in the Majority reading (4 5 6 1 2 3 ). Next, the Bezae group
and the consensus reading are identical in their witness to the first part of verse 19; in
the second half of the verse, however, their paths diverge. Each of these Syriac
witnesses testifies to a knowledge of the Majority text, yet each includes its own
rendering of at least some part of Luke 22:19b20. The Peshitta, the Syriac Vulgate,
despite its complete omission of verses 1718, follows the Majority text almost
verbatim in transmitting verse 19b20.73 The Curetonian Syriac manifests no parallel
with verse 20, but except for the omission of the participle dido/menon parrots verse
19b word for word. The Sinaitic text renders 19b exactly, but splits and alters verse 20.
The precise differences are detailed in the following chart:
Majority Text
20 kai\ to\ poth/rion w(sau/twv
meta\ to\ deipnh=sai,
le/gwn,
Tou=to
to\ poth/rion
[see line 8 below]
h9 kainh\ diaqh/kh
e0n tw|= ai3mati/ mou,
to\ u9pe\r u9mw=n e0kxunno/menon.
Sinaitic Syriac
20 kai\ [omit cup ]
meta\ to\ deipnh=sai
[insert v. 17]74
tou=to
[no mention of cup]
e0stin to\ ai[ma& mou
h9\ diaqh/kh h9 kainh\
[see line 6 above]
[no parallel]
Notice the differences in how the two strands of tradition treat the cup and blood.
Twice the scribe responsible for the Sinaitic Syriac has omitted reference to the cup.
Where in the Majority text we locate the peculiar cup-bread-cup pattern, and three
72
Using the Majority text and Bezae group as a base, the Curetonian verse order is
191718; the Sinaitic is 1920a1720b18; and the Peshitta simply 1920, with no parallel
at all to verse 18.
73
The only slight difference being one of word order: kai\ to\ poth/rion w(sau/twv in the
Majority reading, with 1 4 [1] 2 3 in the Peshitta.
74
The Sinaitic witness appears to follow the Majority text here, if the translation of the dative
and accusative are properly mirrored in moving from the Syriac to Greek as conjectured here.
Where Bezae transmits the dative distribute this among yourselves (diameri/sate e9autoi=v),
the Majority reading employs the accusative share this with each other (diameri/sate ei0v
e9autou/v).
161
times attend the term poth/rion (cup) in its accountindeed, twice in this
versethe Sinaitic text offers us only a single passing glimpse of the cup. In point of
fact, the cup of which he affords a glance is not the so-called second cup, but the
earlier, so-called first cup. The Sinaitic text offers no parallel to the references to
poth/rion in verse 22:20. So, either the scribe responsible for the Sinaitic text was not
familiar with the Majority text, or he modified the text, either by accident or design.
Which was it? Let us hold that question in abeyance for a moment as we return to the
rest of the Syriac tradition for additional insight.
Thus far our investigation has disclosed the following facts. (1) With regard to
verse order, the entire Syriac tradition inverts the traditional flow in order to substitute
a bread-cup pattern for either a cup-bread (Bezae) or a cup-bread-cup (Majority) table
paradigm. None of the Syriac witnesses mentions a second cup. The scribes who
produced these versional witnesses, then, imposed on their exemplar an act of quill.
If their original contained the Bezae reading, they inserted a different table paradigm,
and, if the Majority reading lay open before them, they did away entirely with a second
cup. (2) With regard to verse 19a, the Syriac tradition agrees with both the Majority text
and the Bezae group reading. Little is to be learned here. (3) With regard to verse 19b,
which serves as the line of demarcation between the Majority and Bezae texts, both the
Old Syriac (syc,s) and the Peshitta (syp) virtually duplicate the consensus reading. This
seems telling. At the very point at which the road of transmission forks, the entire
Syriac tradition follows the tracks laid down by the Majority text in publishing verse
19b. (4) With regard to verse 20, each witness to the Syriac tradition offers a distinct
reading. The Peshitta virtually replicates the Majority text, while the Curetonian bears
no trace of the verse. It is left to the Sinaitic text to locate a middle ground. The scribe
of this text relayed verse 20, but not before he recast it according to his own
idiosyncratic agenda. But what was that agenda?
Consider the likelihood of apologetic motivation. Something similar occurs in
Justin, where we locate a bread-cup paradigm, a table model that reverses the elements
of the original text. We noted above in Celsus and Fronto the caustic tirades directed
at followers of Jesus by some pagan intellectuals regarding the drunkenness and
debauchery presumed to occur at Christian assemblies. We also marked reference to
accusations that Christians were cannibals who ingested human flesh and blood.
Moreover, in Justin, we locate a table model that reverses the presentation of elements
in the shorter text and portrays a bread-cup paradigm.75
There appears to exist in this variant reading a point of contact with these
apologetic dynamics. The precise features of deviation between the Sinaitic Syriac and
the consensus text concern cup and blood. By omission and inverted word order sys
excises reference to a second cup and separates the blood from the chalice. It seems
evident that the effect of these changes would potentially reduce the perception of
either drunkenness or blood ingestion. The evidence presented here strongly indicates
that this reading resulted from the efforts of a scribe who was aware of or attuned to
75
Ap. I.62.
162
such pagan accusations directed against Christians. No mechanical cause seems to lie
behind the Sinaitic Syriac text, nor does harmonization to Paul or Synoptic parallels
explain these particular changes. The motivation of apologetic interests, however,
affords a reasonable explanation for the scribal amendment recorded in the Sinaitic
Syriac reading of Luke 22:1720.
Next, we shift focus to a group of readings, related to one another by a common
theme of prostration. Among those practices of Christians with which Celsus found
fault was this physical gesture of submission. As recorded in Contra Celsum, he declared,
the humble man humiliates himself in a disgraceful and undignified manner, throwing
himself headlong to the ground upon his knees (xamaipeth\v e0pi\ tw=n gona&twn kai\
prhnh\v e0rrimme/nov), clothing himself in a beggars rags, and heaping dust upon
himself.76 Origen, of course, responded with the claim that Celsus had misunderstood
the doctrine of humility. Falling to ones knees was merely an outward expression of
human subjugation to the will of God as it had been modeled by Christ. Tertullian,
also, in de Paenitentia, went to great lengths to lay out in detail the proper obligation of
self-abasement and penitence.77 Even some Christians, though, found such kneeling
disgraceful, and Greeks generally associated it with barbarian superstition.78
So, although some Christians understood the gesture as an humble act of piety,
the practice of falling to ones knees was regarded with suspicion by a portion of the
pagan populace and unfavorably even by some within the movement itself. Although
apologists such as Origen and Tertullian attempted to explain the Christian belief that
lay behind the custom, theirs was an uphill struggle.
This dynamic offers us reason to pause, then, before a trio of variant readings that
surface in Marks Gospel that deal with this matter of prostration. At first glance, they
appear benign, so far as historical significance is concerned. With regard to reflecting
apologetic interests, however, such a cursory reading may prove deceptive. Each
centers around the act of falling to ones knees or prostrating oneself in pious (or, in
one case, feigned) reverence. Before proceeding to the texts, though, it seems prudent
to recall the Greek locutions involved. Various Greek terms are used in the Septuagint
(LXX), New Testament, and Greco-Roman literature for genuflection, including
gonupete/w, prospi/ptw, tiqe/nai e0pi\ ta\ go/nata, ka&mptein ta\ gona&ta and
o0kla&zein e0pi\ ta\ go/nata.79 Such variety of terminology is represented in the
modified readings we are about to peruse. Yet, all of these terms in one way or another
communicate the act of kneeling or falling to ones face in homage or supplication,
76
Cels. VI.15. H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, p. 328. M. Borret, Vol. III, 214.
Paen. 9. As H. Chadwick notes, however, it is evident from section 11 of this same work
that some Christians found this custom unseemly and shameful.
78
Both Plutarch and Theophrastus, e.g., denoted prostration as characteristic of a person
of superstition. See Plutarch, Mor. 166A. Theophrastus, Char. 16.
79
The following discussion of these Greek terms is based on entries located in G. W. H.
Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 322, 11746, 1181; Heinrich Schlier, go/nh, gonupete/w,
I.73840, and Wilhelm Michaelis, pi/ptw, ktl.,VI.16173, and H. Greever, proskune/w,
VI.75866, in G. Kittel, TWNT.
77
163
either as a slave to ones master or as a suppliant to ones deity. A synonymous term

relevant to this discussion, one which occurs in both pagan and Christian canonical
sources, is proskune/w, a term which although associated with a demonstration of
pious adoration traces its etymology to the act of kissing rather than kneeling. The
Septuagint at various points employs the term to translate the Hebrew words for
bow, kiss, serve or, most often, worship. Almost always in the New
Testament the word features an object of veneration. Christian writers frequently
employed the term in reference to pagan devotional practices.80
A series of textual variants arises around this theme of worship and prostration.
The first of these occurs in the Markan narrative of the woman with the hemorrhage.
In touching Jesus garment she is healed, but she becomes shaken when Jesus, sensing
that power has gone out of him, seeks her out. What is clearly the original text of
Mark 5:33 reads, But the woman, with fear and trembling, knowing what had
happened to her, came and fell before him (prose/pesen au0tw|=) and told him the whole
truth. Two extant manuscriptsthe fifth century Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) and
the fourth century Old Latin Codex Vercellensis (a) however, bear witness to
transcriptional activity.81 In each of these manuscripts the phrase fell before him
(prose/pesen au0tw|=) has been changed to a synonym best translated worshiped
him (proseku/nhsen au0tw|=).
The second instance arises in Marks account of the soldiers mocking Jesus (Mark
15:19). Having costumed him with a purple cloak and a crown of plaited thorns, the
governors guards, the evangelist reports, struck his head with a reed, and spat upon
him, and knelt down in homage to him (kai\ tiqe/ntev ta\ go/nata proseku/noun au0tw|=).
There should be no dispute that the authors text read so. The Matthean parallel
suggests strongly that there was in Mark reference to the soldiers scornful parody of
prostration. In addition, the external evidence consistently supports this contention.
Except, that is, for certain Western witnesses. Codex Bezae, k, and vgms fail to record
this clause. The most immediate explanation for this is scribal error. Since the second
part of the verse begins and ends with the same words (kai/...au0tw|=), omission is
readily accounted for by either homoeoarcton and/or homoeoteuleton.
A similar set of variant readings is located at Mark 1:40. The verse begins the
Markan version of the healing of the leper, and reads, And there came to him a leper
who called out to him [v. l. and fell to his knees] and said to him, If you wish to you
have the power to make me clean. Here, the textual question consists of whether the
phrase kai\ gonupetw=n represents the Markan original or a scribal gloss. The fact
that the parallel accounts rendered by Matthew and Luke contain a reference to
kneeling makes it highly likely that the phrase was Markan in origin.82 Yet, the UBS4
80
H. Greever, proskune/w,TWNT, VI.75866.

Report of this variant is absent in the apparatus of both UBS4 and N-A27. For citation see
the apparatus of von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, p. 146, and K. Aland, Synopsis
Quattuor Evangeliorum, p. 191.
82
As noted by J. Marcus, Mark 18, 205.
81
164
Committee, although it opted to retain the phrase as original, indicated some

misgivings by enclosing the phrase in square brackets and rating it only a {C}, a slight
improvement over the {D} it had been given in the previous edition. Their hesitation
surfaced from the strong counter-testimony brought by the absence of the reading in
the highly-regarded Alexandrian and Western witnesses, B and D. Other strong
witnesses, thoughincluding , L, Q, f1, and 565support inclusion. Moreover, as
noted previously, those who adhere to the theory of Markan priority should find the
support of the Synoptic parallel accounts compelling. Matthew 8:1 reads proseku/nei
(worshiped); Luke 5:12, pesw_n e0pi\ pro/swpon (falling prostrate). Elsewhere we
have observed the pattern that Matthew and Luke tend to follow Mark by copying
verbatim or importing synonyms, except when stylistic or tendentious reasons lead
them to do otherwise. Therefore, it is fair to statewith a greater degree of confidence
than is reflected by the committee of UBS4it seems highly likely that Marks
original text included kai\ gonupetw=n.
What remains is to wonder what forces may have prompted the change. Certainly,
as in the previous citation, omission as a result of homoeoarcton is a strong possibility;
a scribe could have skipped from one kai/ to another. Metzger explains the omission
as the result of homoeoteuleton, but Joel Marcus questions this, since the preceding
word au0to\n shares only its final letter with gonupetw=n.83 Mechanical error there-fore
serves as one plausible explanation for the omission, though it is by no means certain.
Nor does it constitute the only reasonable one. Marcus suggests the possibility of
assimilation to Mark 10:17 or as a tendentious embellishment to highlight the divinity
of Jesus.84 Also, I would add, the evidence adduced in the references to Origen and
Tertullian produce sound reasons for postulating that apologetic interests shaped this
reading. In the writings of these two apologists we locate concern on the part of some
defenders of the faith regarding the Christian practice of kneeling. Informed of this
dynamic, therefore, we should not rush to assign mechanical origin to these specific
variants currently under review.
Now, to be sure, not every canonical report of pious kneeling or prostration bears
the mark of scribal alteration. Matthew 17:14 and Mark 10:17 serve as examples where
no apparent scribal activity has occurred in descriptions of falling to ones knees (in
both instances the verb is a form of gonupete/w). Here, though, it is important to
remember the caveat of Eldon Epp, that because the scribal transmission of sacred
texts is a relatively conservative enterprise, premeditated alterations are more likely to
be introduced with cautious subtlety than with rigid consistency.85 Moreover, examination of the textual tradition, as we have seen, clearly demonstrates that scribes were
neither systematic nor exhaustive in their purposeful modifications of exemplars.
83
B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 76; J. Marcus, Mark 18, 206.

J. Marcus, Mark 18, 206.
85
E. J. Epp, Theological Tendency, 38. See also K. Lake, The Influence of Textual Criticism
on the Exegesis of the New Testament, 10 f.
84
165
Bearing this in mind, this fact remains: in three separate instances located in the
earliest of the canonical Gospels reference to kneeling has been displaced in
transcription, either by omission or word substitution. Although the latter two of these
can (but by no means must) be explained mechanically, the first of the trio is not so
easily accounted for. This instance bears the unmistakable marks of deliberate
modification. With premeditation, in probably more than one of these instances,
scribes have chosen to substitute one word for another. That is, copyists have
intentionally altered the text. Of this there is no dispute.
The lingering historical question is Why? What I have attempted to demonstrate
here is how the motivation of apologetic concerns offers one plausible and reasonable
explanation for this transcriptional activity. Both vocal pagan critics and some
adherents (perhaps even some transcribers!) of the movement found the particular
practice of prostration distasteful. The efforts apologetic writers expended to explain
the custom and make it palatable to Hellenized observers was met evidently with only
limited success.86 Therefore, it is not far-fetched to conceive of apolo-getically sensitive
scribes altering the gospel descriptions of this practice in just the way the tradition
indicates, either by verbal amendment or deletion. Indeed, several changes to the
language and practice of prostration that occur in the textual tradition coincide
precisely with apologetic concerns related to pagan distaste for the behavior of
genuflection. Although it must be admitted that the evidence does not permit
certification of intentional scribal activity in two of these three readings, neither does it
dismiss outright the possibility. Commitment to thoroughness dictates that the impulse
to attribute these transmissional changes to technical error should be balanced with the
realistic possibility that apologetic interests could well have driven the intentional
modification of one or more of these readings.
Pagans also found disgusting the practice on the part of Christians to recognize
one another as sisters and brothers.87 Frontos scandalous depiction of the behavior
of believers cited in Octavius includes the charge that followers indiscriminately call
each other brother and sister, thus turning even ordinary fornication into incest....88
Margaret MacDonald finds this a telling example of how pagans believed that
Christians blurred the lines of distinction between, in the contemporary terminology
of social anthropologists, public and private spheres of society. By doing so, early
Christians in the minds of some of their contemporaries threatened some of the social
norms that lay at the foundation of Greco-Roman society.89
86
See, e.g., the references to Tertullian and Irenaeus above, n. 68.

Yet, at least some apologists boasted of the behavior as indicative of their high moral
character and godly affection. Aristides, e.g., reports how masters of a Christian household win
their servants to Christ not by fiat but by their loving example, and that, when slaves do submit
to baptism, they are called without distinction brothers. Ap. Aristides 15, J. R. Harris, TS I, 49.
88
Oct. 8. LCL, 413.
89
M. MacDonald, Early Christian Women, 61.
87
166
It is interesting, in this light, that several textual variants involve the editorial
revision of language related to brothers. Certain scribes (B* 0128* 1424 ff1 ff2), for
example, excised the familial language in Matthew 25:40, so that the phrase the least
of these my brothers was left simply the least of these.90 Also reflected in some later
manuscripts (157, l2211 pc) is evidence of scribal activity that changed the reference to
brothers in Matthew 28:10 to read disciples.91 This pattern repeats itself in Acts
1:15, where Peter is said to rise to address the brothers regarding the replacement
of Judas. Numerous are the witnesses here that report a change either to apostles
(P74) or disciples (C3vid D E Y 1739s Maj it sy mae; Cyp). Admittedly, the evidence
for these cases is less convincing than others I have adduced above, but I proffer them
here for the sake of thoroughness and for their potential origin in apologetic
motivation.
The textual variants brought together under this rubric have all in some way dealt
with pagan perceptions of the behavior of the followers of Jesus. Where they were
accused of drunken excess and promiscuity, defenders of the faith replied with
characterizations of themselves as a community of moral discipline, sobriety and piety.
Where pagans heaped suspicion on Christians by describing their regular gatherings
in the standard rhetoric of Thyestian banquets, cannibalistic feasts, and incestuous
orgies, apologetic authors sought to defend themselves by explaining the benign
character of their gatherings, the allegorical meaning of their Eucharist, and the great
reverence they attached to this meal. We have seen these themes played out in the
works of Justin, Athenagoras, Origen, Minucius Felix and Tertullian, just to name a
few. We have also detailed how, occasionally at points, copyists of the canonical
Gospels intentionally modified their exemplars in ways that mirror these same
strategies and motifs. Let us turn now to another group of variant readings, the content
of which we shall see reflects how debate concerning the emotional and intellectual
composition of the followers of Jesus played itself out in the apologetic wars.
90
Those who would argue that this change is due to assimilation to verse 45 can make a
case, but it would be hindered by the fact that the harmonization would be directed forward
rather than backward, which is the more likely (though admittedly not only) direction of
modification. It is also interesting here that, among patristic sources, Clement (pt) and Eusebius
are two apologetically-minded writers who bear witness to this amended reading.
91
It is difficult to know whether the modification of Luke 22:32 may be adduced here or
not. Codex D bears witness to a scribe who altered Jesus words to Peter, ...when you have
turned again, strengthen your brothers (a)delfou/v) to ...strengthen your eyes (o0fqalmou/v).
The produced reading is so strange that I hesitate to adduce it as evidence, but I report it here
for the sake of thoroughness.
167
REGARDING THE FOOLS WHO FOLLOWED JESUS
A brief survey of the following collection of variant readings suggests a pattern

in which scribes altered their exemplars with an agenda to mollify negative character
traits on the part of the disciplestraits such as an insecure bashfulness around adults,
fear, indignance, or intellectual bewilderment. To some pagan intellectuals, such
characteristics made Christians appear foolish.
Pagan critics frequently described Christianity as a religious movement embraced
mostly by women, children, and gullible males. Moreover, Christians were disparaged
as persons who preyed on little children and others of malleable wills but shied away
from rational adults. Certainly Lucian displayed this opinion.92 Celsus, in particular,
mocked Christians for proselytizing only the foolish, dishonourable and stupid, and
only slaves, women, and little children.93 Continuing his assault, he asserted:
Moreover, we see that those who display their secret lore in the market-places and
go about begging would never enter a gathering of intelligent men, nor would they
dare to reveal their noble beliefs in their presence; but whenever they see adolescent
boys and a crowd of slaves and a company of fools, they push themselves in and
show off.94
Finally, exhibiting severe disdain, Celsus defamed:

In private houses also we see wool-workers, cobblers, laundry-workers, and the most
illiterate and bucolic yokels, who would not dare say anything at all in front of their
elders and more intelligent masters. But whenever they get hold of children in private
and some stupid women with them, they let out some astounding statements as, for
example, that they must not pay attention to their father and school-teachers, but
must obey them; they say that these talk nonsense and have no understanding, and
that in reality they neither know nor are able to do anything good, but are taken up
with empty chatter. But they alone, they say, know the right way to live, and if the
children would believe them, they would become happy and make their home happy
as well. And if just as they are speaking they see one of the school-teachers coming,
or some intelligent person, or even the father himself, the more cautious of them flee
in all directions; but the more reckless urge the children on to rebel....95
Origen extended his response to these charges over several pages, suggesting the high
level of concern he felt about this issue.96 While he acknowledged that Christians
sought to encourage all to wisdom (i.e. faith in Jesus), and therefore taught slaves,
92
Lucian, Death of Peregrinus, 13; see L. Casson, ed., Selected Satires, 369.
Cels. III.44.
94
Cels. III.50. The translation here belongs to H. Chadwick, 162.
95
Cels. III.55; H. Chadwick, 16566.
96
Cels. III.4458; H. Chadwick 15868.
93
168
women, and children, he insisted that Christians would not hesitate to teach their
lessons in front of fathers and teachers who themselves exhibited virtue.97
Key elements of this discourse between Celsus and Origen, related in particular
to the accusation that Christians were prone to retreat from adults, can arguably be
observed in the variant reading of Mark 10:13. This verse introduces the Markan
account of Jesus blessing the children. Scholars voice no dispute here as to the
direction of scribal shift. The original text tells of a time that, when some people (the
use of a pronoun here leaves them unidentified) brought their children in hopes that
Jesus would touch them, the disciples rebuked them (e0peti/mhsan au)toi=v). It is
difficult to understand why the disciples would have been so guarded of Jesus in this
instance, unless it was for protection (unlikely in the face of children) or simply to
shield him from a ceaseless barrage of people wanting something from Jesus.98 R. H.
Gundry states straightforwardly that Mark offers no explanation for why the disciples
rebuked those attending to the children.99 Ben Witherington ventures that what
prompted their rebuke was a typical ancient attitude that children were less
important than adults, and that renowned teachers like Jesus should not have to bother
with them.100
The greater issue for scribes, however, appears to have been the ambiguity of the
pronoun, au)toi=v. Grammatically, it is possible to understand the pronoun here as
referring to the children rather than their anonymous adult ushers. As evidenced in
a wide variety of witnesses, however, certain scribes exhibited a sensitivity to this
potential misunderstanding, and therefore clarified the object of the disciples
chastisement by amending the reading, e0peti/mwn toi=v au)toi=v prosfe/rousin,
they were rebuking those who brought them.101 This expansion serves clearly to
isolate the adult attendants as the recipients of the apostles reprimand.102 Despite the
fact that in the story, ultimately, Jesus rebuffs the disciples, there is a sense in which
this scribal modification potentially improves the lot of Jesus followers. Even if
misdirected, their concern is clearly for Jesus; it is just that, and this is the point of the
pericope, Jesus is concerned for the children. More to the point for this study, though,
is that the text as these scribes refined it now conveys the sense that the disciples did
not dismiss the children but rebuked the adults who had brought them. Moreover, as
is indicated by the masculine dative plural pronoun in original Mark (au)toi=v), at
least some of those adults they confronted were males.103 Thus, in the hands of these
97
Cels. III.5758.
See, e.g., C. S. Mann, Mark, 396.
99
R. H. Gundry, Mark, 544.
100
B. Witherington, Mark, 279.
101
See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 105 for his brief but vital discussion, and his
delineation of manuscript witnesses. Notable among the list of those that testify to the amended
reading are several important Western and Caesarean sources, including D W Q f 13 565 700.
102
This is a commonly held view. For example, see B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 105; V.
Taylor, Mark, 422; C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 323; and W. Lane, Mark, 35859.
103
See, e.g., C. E. B. Cranfield, Mark, 323; W. Lane, Mark, 35859.
98
169
copyists, the edited story presented his disciples as persons who were willing to stand
up for Jesus even in the face of adults who had their own agenda. This mirrors
precisely the features of Origens reply to Celsusthat Christians did in fact teach and
confront adversarial adultsand suggests once again that apologetic interests may
have triggered a particular scribal revision.
The determination by the UBSGNT Committee to assign its rendering of Mark
14:4 only a {C} rating seems reserved, given that Metzgers explanation rests firmly on
both external and intrinsic evidence.104 The variant occurs in the pericope narrating the
anointing at Bethany. In Marks account, Simon the leper is entertaining Jesus when
unannounced a woman bearing a costly alabaster flask of ointment broke the flask and
poured its contents upon the head of Jesus. Then follows Mark 14:4, which reports the
reaction of some who were present, saying, But there were some who began speaking
indignantly with each other, Why was this ointment thus wasted? (h]san de\ tinev
a0ganaktou=ntev pro\v e9autou/v....) In what appears to be the secondary reading,
however, the speakers are identified as not merely some guests but Jesus disciples. The
variant reads, But his disciples had become annoyed, and said, Why was this
ointment wasted? (oi9 de\ maqhtai\ au0tou= dieponou=nto kai\ e1legon....).
First of all, D, Q, and 565 are the best of the few witnesses that testify to the
alternate reading; this is a feeble defense against the rest of the textual tradition.
Moreover, Metzger asserts that the secondary nature of the reading is exposed by the
substitution of the Matthean oi9 maqhtai/ (Mt 26:8) in place of the more typical
Markan indefinite subject tinev. This point is confirmed by the conflate reading
located in W, f 13, and a few others, tinev tw=n maqhtw=n. Another mark of its scribal
origins is found in the substitution of the non-Markan diaponei=sqai for
a0ganaktei=n, a verb which does appear elsewhere in Mark (10:14, 41). Though an
indication of its secondary character, this exchange of verbs can be traced to neither
mechanical error nor assimilation. The words are too dissimilar for their exchange to
have resulted from confusion, and, as noted earlier, diaponei=sqai occurs nowhere
else in Mark so that a scribe might have erred by glancing even several verses away.
Also, the verb diaponei=sqai occurs in no parallel text; indeed, it occurs nowhere else
in any of the Gospels, though it is used by the writer of Acts (4:2, 16:18).
What then could explain this intentional modification? Apologetic motives suggest
a reason. First of all, let us explore the definitions. The term a0ganaktei=n means to
be indignant, vexed, angry, violently irritated, or showing outward signs of
grief.105 Cast in this language, the reaction of the onlookers is cast as negative,
tendentious, dark, and oppositional. Though Mark does not indicate who these
onlookers arehe employs here the indefinite pronoun, tinevit seems likely,
especially when one compares this text with the pericope just discussed, that the writer
104

Liddell-Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 56.
105
170
has in mind the disciples.106 Recall that in the story of Jesus blessing the children, the
disciples rebuked (e0peti/mhsan) some adults (some of whom were male) bringing
children to Jesus. In that pericope his followers were recognized as persons who, even
if as the result of good intentions, were capable of misunderstanding and getting in the
way of his ministry. Moreover, it bears repeating, this confusion on the part of his
followers evoked from Jesus a response of indignation (h)gana&kthsen), a form of the
same verb presently under discussion. As noted above, it is striking that Matthew and
Luke altered their Markan source by omitting any mention of Jesus growing angry in
this context. So, we have a verb indicating violent or negative emotion and evidence
that some users of Mark found reason to avoid applying the term, a0ganaktei=n, to
Jesus. We also have reason to suspect that readers, at least some, would have had
reason to understand the antecedent of the indefinite pronoun tinev in Mark 14:4 to
have been the disciples.107 This being said, it does not require much of a leap in logic
to advance the notion that other users of Mark, namely copyists of the Gospel, might
also have felt compelled to avoid applying a0ganaktei=n to Jesus followers. This
proposition accrues interest when one considers an apparent evolution in the meaning
of the word substituted by those scribes, diapone/w. Verbal and nominative forms of
this term encompass a wide range of meanings, most of which are related to labor and
achievement, including achieve, cultivate, work out with labor, and the reward
of toil. Its passive form, diaponei=sqai, implies being worn out from labor.108 In
Acts, though, the author twice uses the word in a sense that closely approximates
a0ganaktei=n. The first of these (Ac 4:2) occurs in the wake of Peters miraculous
healing of a crippled man and his stirring sermon at Solomons portico. The concerned
and troubled reaction on the part of the priests, Samaritans and captain of the temple
is characterized as diaponou/menoi. The second time the word is used (Ac 16:18)
occurs in reference to Pauls surly response to a spirit-possessed female diviner. She
has been, we are told, following after him and his company for several days, promoting
their identity as preachers of salvation by shrieking, These men are servants of the
most high God.... Finally, we are told, Paul, described as diaponhqei\v, exorcises
from the female the spirit of divination, to the economic consternation of her male
handlers. Translators frequently render both of these forms of diapone/w annoyed,
accurately enough conveying the sense of the antecedent party feeling irritated beyond
limits, badgered, and harassed.
106
This probability increases when one compares this pericope with its parallel versions in
the other canonical Gospels. While Luke reports that it was Jesus Pharisee host who harbored
resentment toward the anointing, the writer of Matthew ascribes the negative reaction to Jesus
disciples, while the author of the Fourth Gospel declares that it was Judas alone from whom
this response issued. This is noteworthy, considering that in Mark and Matthew, this event is
followed immediately by the account of Judas presenting before the Jewish authorities his offer
to hand Jesus over to them.
107
For further evidence of this point see, C. E. B. Cranfield, St. Mark, 41516.
108
Liddell-Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 408.
171
Yet, notice the very different meaning in the term when applied by the Christian
apologist, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150215 C.E.). In Paedagogus he employs forms
of the term (diapo/nhsiv, diaponhte/on) in reference to the kinds of toil and
exercise appropriate to the godly life.109 Here the term lacks any sense of vexation
or irritation, but conveys instead a sense of dutiful and fruitful labor and exercise on
the part of the believer.
Limited as this evidence is, it seems at least within reason to surmise that the more
familiar nuances of this term had evolved between the time Luke used it in Acts and
Clement used it in Paedagogus. Moreover, there can be no doubt that scribes did
intentionally alter the term; no mechanical explanation is evident. If we are correct in
tracing this development in the meaning of diapone/w between the time of Acts and
Clement, then the exchange of terms goes a long way toward toning down the hostile
character of those onlookers who witness this woman so lavishly anointing Jesus.
Thus, it seems reasonable to conjecture that defensively-minded scribes felt compelled
to mollify the character of the disciples here in Mark 14:4. So the scribes recast the
dynamics of this interchange. In seeing the woman anoint Jesus, his disciples did not
become vexed, annoyed, and angry; rather, they began discussing with each other in
an attempt to figure out what was going on.
A number of other variant readings appear to display this concern with reactions
on the part of the disciples. At Matthew 17:23, an omission of the phrase kai\
e0luph/qhsan sfo/dra (they were greatly distressed) has been preserved in Codex
Cyprius (K), a ninth or tenth century uncial manuscript generally associated with the
Byzantine or Majority textual tradition. Davies and Allison point out that this verse in
Matthew already represents a mollified reading of Mark 8:32, and they were ignorant
about the saying and feared to ask him.110 This prior attention to the verse with regard
to mollifying perceptions indicates that something more deliberate than mechanical
error is involved here. Moreover, the omission fits this paradigm witnessed earliest in
Matthew and Luke but maintained and expanded by the apologists.
A few, mostly Western witnesses (D W f 1.13 lat) disclose a revision of Mark 9:10
that consists of the subtle substitution of o3tan...a0na&sth| for to\...a0nasth=nai. Thus,
the phrase questioning among themselves what rising from the dead was was altered
to read questioning among themselves about when he might rise from the dead. E.
Schweizers insight that no Jew would have needed to ask what the resurrection meant
indicates that the evangelist himself had composed this dialogue in order to make a
point.111 Ostensibly, some scribes sensed a need to transpose this dialogue, but to what
end? The substance of the change hints at apologetic motives. The effect of this
109
Paed. 3.10.
W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew 2, 734. Already for the evangelists some concern
is in evidence for perceptions related to the disciples.
111
For Schweizer that point is that the disciples were blind to the revelation of God.
Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (Translated by Donald H. Madvig; Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1977), 18485.
110
172
alteration was that it transformed the disciples from persons who were dumbfounded
by Jesus proclamation into men who were curious about the time when it would take
place. Thus, with a dash of reflection and a pass of his pen, this unnamed scribe
managed to make the disciples appear smarter.
Later in that same chapter is related a story of Jesus interrupting a dispute between
his followers and some of the teachers of Torah. It should be noted that this story
follows close upon the heels of the transfiguration account (Mark 9:28). In their
transcriptions of Mark 9:15, several Old Latin witnesses join Codex Bezae in replacing
prostre/xontev with prosxai/rontev, thereby transforming an amazed mass of
people running up to Jesus into a crowd of rejoicing devotees. M. Hooker calls
attention to the unusual placement of the reaction of the crowd at the beginning of the
story, rather than the more characteristic Markan style of so closing his narratives.112
B. Witherington follows R. H. Gundry in attributing the astonishment of the crowds
to his transfigured countenance, an intentional reminiscence on the part of the author
of reactions to Moses descent from Sinai (Ex 34:2930).113 Yet, where Mark may have
wished his readers to share a sense of awe in the face of Christ, the scribes responsible
for this revision shifted the reaction from one of awe-struck astonishment to that of
gleeful celebration. Once again, this reflects the apologetic concern to improve
perceptions related to the followers of Jesus. They want to communicate that
Christians do not consist solely of gullible masses easily amazed and swayed, but who
understand what Jesus is about and who rejoice in his presence.
The fifteenth chapter of the third Gospel consists of a triad of Lukes best known
parablesthe Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, and the Lost Son. While the Lost Sheep has a
Matthean parallel (Mt 18:1214) and therefore issues from the Q-source, the Lost Coin
and Lost Son are unique to Luke (L). All three of these parables are addressed to a
group of Pharisees and scribes who are murmuring about the fact that Jesus keeps
company and dines with sinners and tax collectors (Lk 15:12). In most manuscripts,
the chapter begins, Now the tax collectors and sinners were all (pa&ntev) drawing
near to hear him. The crisp omission of pa&ntev in a few transcriptions of Luke 15:1
(W lat sys.c.p sams), however, merits attention. A. Plummer comments that how the term
is understood greatly determines the reading of the sentence. If it is regarded
hyperbolically to mean, very many, or is taken to refer to all the publicans and
undesirables in that specific locale, the verb indicates that some number of tax
collectors and sinners were drawing near to him on a particular occasion. On the
other hand, if the term is taken literally to refer to the whole class of tax collectors
and sinners, then the verb can be translated, used to draw near, indicating the
112
Morna Hooker, The Gospel According to Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 222.
Ben Witherington, III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 266. Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 48788.
113
173
repeated action of a pattern.114 Either way, Plummers observations demonstrate that

pa&ntev in its clause is not a wasted word easily dismissed. So, although its omission
could easily be the result of scribal accident, it is also reasonable to recognize the
omission to be deliberate, and possibly apologetically-driven. The omission, if
intentional, would have served effectively to sidestep the standard pagan critique that
Christians consisted only or entirely of sinners, tax collectors, and members of the
lowest classes.
Finally, in Luke 9:26 , may be observed a scribal rendering that elevates the status
of the twelve and of all subsequent followers. Here, in the narrative context of Jesus
discussing the need to follow him with no regard for the cost, the original text reads,
Whoever is ashamed of me and my words (lo/gouv), of him shall the Son of Man be
ashamed when he comes in his glory.... Certain witnesses, however, omit lo/gouv,
and thus redirect the requirement to honor my words to simply mine. The loss of
the noun could conceivably be attributed to mechanical error, but we should not
disregard the fact that the omission of the noun produces the effect of transferring the
honor applied to Jesus words to his disciples and followers.
Enemies of Christianity could not do enough to disparage the social class to
which the disciples belonged.115 In turn, apologetically-minded writers urged that the
apostles, in the words of Walter Bauer, were by no means sprung from wholly
impecunious circles. Clement of Alexandria, he further points out, described Matthew
as rich, and in the apocryphal First Book of Jeu 2, the apostles say:
We...have forsaken father and mother...have forsaken goods, have forsaken the
splendor of a king and have followed you.116
It was noted earlier that Athenagoras insisted that Christianity embraced all classes, not
only the lowly.117 Tertullian, also, sought to defend the social status of Christians,
insisting that Christians labored in society, paid taxes without deceit, and otherwise
participated in the economy. We are sailors, he wrote, we serve in the army; we
114
A. Plummer, Luke, ICC 29, 36768. Plummer also reports that pa=v is a favorite Lukan
term (38).
115
See, e.g., Cels. I.62, 63; II.46; Julian, C. Christianos, 199, 200, 226. See also the lucid and
compelling discussion in Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1983), 5173, where he argues that early Christian congregations consisted of a cross
section of Greco-Roman society, exclusive of the extreme top and bottom of society.
116
W. Bauer, The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition, HenneckeSchneemelcher, eds. New Testament Apocrypha,Vol II. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) p. 3574
[esp 3940]. The citation of Clement is from Quis div. 13, and the reference to First Book of Jeu
2 is GCS 45, 258. On the other hand, however, the Pseudo-Clementine literature (Hom. XII.6)
reports that Peter and Andrew grew up as orphans in poverty.
117
Leg 11:34.
174
engage in farming and trading; we share with you our arts; we place the products of
our labor at your service.118
In this regard, additional evidence for our thesis may be derived from the next
grouping of variant readings in which social and economic considerations constitute
the common theme. These texts appear to have been altered in precise agreement with
the contours of apologetic interests related to how early Christians were perceived to
fall into these categories. One, in fact, is the product of an apologist. Origen, in
treating the Lords Prayer in Matthew 6:12, in place of the term, ta\ o0feilh/mata,
debts, substituted paraptw/mata, misdeeds or trespasses.119 Origens
exchange of terms appears quite intentional, but is not readily explained as an act of
harmonization with the Lukan text. The parallel text (Luke 11:4) offers a plea for
forgiveness of ta\v a9marti/av, sins, not paraptw/mata. Moreover, the variant
readings that might signal a harmonization of the Lukan text to that of Matthew
feature the term ta\ o0feilh/mata. Similarly, the version of the prayer located in
Didache also employs a form of ta\ o0feilh/mata.120 The term paraptw/mata does
occur later in the Matthean pericope (6:14), which could have brought the term to
mind for Origen, but would not necessarily account fully for his intentional choice to
use the term in this place. Of course, as is frequent in analyzing patristic sources, it is
difficult to know whether Origen is quoting or paraphrasing a text, or citing it or
recalling it from memory; yet, considering how significant the Lords Prayer would
have been for third-century Christians at worship, it is difficult to imagine that Origen
would not have known the reading by heart.121 Yet, it seems possible, given Origens
apologetic concern for precision of language, that he may have altered this text in light
of his own sensitivity to the pagan attacks on the poverty and low social standing of
Christians. Origen may have been moved to avoid the ambiguity of a term wrought
with economic meaning (debts) by substituting a term that was clearly ethical in
content (misdeeds). In praying the Lords Prayer, then, no one could think that
Christians were pleading for God to rid them of their economic burdens; it would be
evident that they were asking for forgiveness from their trespasses.
The texts of Mark 1:18/Matthew 4:20 also appear to have been altered with
possible attention to economic sensitivity. These texts feature Jesus call of the fishers
Simon and Andrew. The narrator describes their decisive response to follow Jesus with
the phrase, oi9 de\ eu0qe/wv a0fe/ntev ta\ di/ktua h0kolou/qhsan au0tw|=, And
immediately, leaving the nets, they followed him. Certain scribes, however, apparently
118
Ap. 42.
See, in fact, how Origen engages in word plays on this economic imagery throughout
his exposition of the Lords Prayer. See his treatise On Prayer, Or. 28.1.
120
Did. 8.2. For additional commentary see W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew I, 597.
121
On the basis of the use of the Lords Prayer in early Christian worship, some scholars
have questioned whether the prayer can be attributed with accuracy to the Q-source. It is
possible that the evangelists (and later scribes?) inserted the version of the prayer known to
them from their own worship services. See W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew I, 591.
119
175
felt compelled to insert the possessive pronoun au0tw=n after ta\ di/ktua, thereby
creating the reading, And immediately, leaving their nets, they followed him.122
Granted, this change is subtle, but the effect is worth noting. Inclusion of the
possessive pronoun implied that what Simon and Andrew were leaving behind was not
merely a job but their own nets, i.e., their own business. Some manuscripts (D, it)
imply this even more strongly, where at Mark 1:18 they replace ta\ di/ktua with
pa&nta, thus producing the reading, And immediately, leaving everything, they followed
him. Given Celsus proclivity for assailing the low class of Christians, and his
tendency to point out the fishermen (sometimes he referred to them as sailors) as
particularly telling examples of this, it appears plausible to think that these scribal
changes may well have been intended to elevate social perceptions of these disciples,
Peter in particular. To hear these scribes relate the story, these disciples were not
merely common laborers; they owned their own business. Yet, they were willing to
drop everything and leave it all behind in order to trace the footprints of this Rabbi
from Nazareth.
A small number of witnesses (D d k) omit the remainder of Mark 9:35 following
dw/deka. This creates a reading lacking the words, and he said to them, He who
would be first is to be last of all and servant of all. Though it has been argued that
these words did not belong to the original text, the sparse manuscript evidence in
support of that contention would invite us at least to consider other reasons for
exclusion. Homoeoarcton is one possibility; since the omission begins with kai\ as does
the next word after the lost phrase, a scribe could have easily had his eye skip from one
to the other. Another possibility worthy of consideration is that the words have been
excised deliberately. M.-J. Lagrange explains the lacuna as result of assimilation to
Matthew and Luke.123 The phrase is indeed absent from parallels in both Matthew and
Luke. This suggests that, if the words were located in their Markan exemplars, both
Matthew and Luke chose to pass over them. Why might they have done so? Taylor
matter-of-factly suggests they did so to improve the order of the narrative.124 Yet, in
light of the acerbic barbs directed at Christians as last among the economic ranks, is
it not plausible to think that it was for defensive reasons that they eliminated the
phrase (...kai\ le/gei au0toi=v, Ei1 tiv qe/lei prw=tov ei]nai e1stai pa&ntwn e1sxatov
kai\ pa&ntwn dia&konov) from Mark, and for those same reasons that later scribes
either followed Matthew and Luke or arrived independently at the decision to similarly
modify their exemplars? After all, did not Celsus imply that slaves constituted a high
122
This scribal activity in Matthew is represented by K W 565 al it sys.c.p co; in Mark, it is
to be found in A f1 Maj f l sy sa bomss.
123
Lomission de D et k kai legei...diakonov, si ce nest un pur accident, a t entrane
par limitation de Mt. et de Lc. M.-J. Lagrange, vangile selon Saint Marc, 245.
124
V. Taylor, Mark, 405.
176
percentage of the male Christian population?125 Yet, did not Athenagoras testify that
some members of the believing community themselves owned slaves?126
Similar dynamics may have been involved in modifications to John 9:8 in the
pericope of the man born blind. A number of witnesses report readings that may have
issued from a concern to emphasize the blindness rather than the beggarly status of
this hapless individual. The original text read, Therefore, his neighbors and those
who had seen him before when he was a beggar (prosai/thv) said, Is this not the one
who was sitting and begging? In its modified forms, though, the text reads,
Therefore, his neighbors and those who had seen him before when he was blind
(tuflo/v)/blind and a beggar (tuflo\v h]n kai\ prosai/thv) said, Is this not the one
who used to sit and beg? Both the substitution and conflated reading have the effect
of emphasizing his physical condition of blindness and muting his economic condition
as a mendicant. This corresponds to apologetic propensities for both countering pagan
contentions that Christians consisted almost exclusively of the impoverished lower
classes and extolling the miracle-working power of Jesus.
THE FEMALES WHO FOLLOWED JESUS
Tatian devoted a chapter of his Address to the Greeks to the vindication of Christian
women. All our women are chaste, he wrote.127 Clearly this apologist was concerned
to defend the virtue of Christian women. There was, as we shall see, good cause.
Female followers, as indicated by both pagan and Christian sources, supplied
opponents of the Jesus movement with a particularly vulnerable point of attack.
Women for Christianity stood, as Margaret Y. MacDonald points out, both at the
center of the movements public controversy as well as at the heart of its egalitarian
appeal.128 The observation of Dieter Georgi, who points out that Juvenal (ca. 60140
C.E.) in some of his satires scolded the missionary practices of Greco-Roman cults for
preying almost exclusively on the curiosity of women, could well be applied to pagan
attitudes toward Christian evangelistic efforts.129 We noted above, in our discussion of
125
See, e.g., Cels. III.50.

Leg. XXXV. Against the charge that Christians are murderers, Athenagoras asserts, And
yet we have slaves, some more and some fewer, by whom we could not help being seen; but
even of these, not one has been found to invent such things against us. The translation is from
ANF II.147. The Greek, according to J. Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten, 153, reads kai/toi
kai\ dou=loi/ ei0sin h(mi=n toi=v me\n kai\ plei/ouv toi=v de\ e0la&ttouv, ou4v ou)k e1sti laqei=n0
a0lla\ kai\ tou/twn ou0dei\v kaq 0 h9mw=n ta\ thlikau=ta ou0de\ kateyeu/sato.
127
Or. 35.2.
128
129
In point of fact, Georgi notes, Juvenal was incorrect. The conversion of Apuleius to Isis,
for example, demonstrates how an educated male could locate appeal in alien cults. Still, in this
case, perceptions may be more important than truth. See Dieter Georgi, Socioeconomic
Reasons for the Divine Man as a Propagandistic Pattern, in Aspects of Religious Propaganda, ed.
E. S. Fiorenza (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976), 2742, esp. 3738.
126
177
Mark 10:13, Celsus derision of the feminine constituency of the Christian cult. To be
sure, Celsus directed one of his most barbed criticisms at what he believed was the frail
foundation of Christianity, i.e., belief in Jesus resurrection, by assailing its claim to
veracity on the grounds that it was based on the testimony of a hysterical woman.
With reference to the resurrection of Jesus, he wondered:
But who saw this? A hysterical female, as you say, and perhaps some other one of
those who were deluded by the same sorcery, who either dreamt in a certain state of
mind and through wishful thinking had a hallucination due to some mistaken notion
(an experience which has happened to thousands), or, which is more likely, wanted
to impress the others by telling this fantastic tale, and so by this cock-and-bull story
to provide a chance for other beggars.130
Origen recognized that Celsus had directed this malediction at Mary Magdalene131, but
he disagreed with his adversarys appraisal of Mary as hysterical, saying, But there
is no evidence of this in the scriptural account which was the source upon which he
drew for his criticism.132
This is but one example of how pagan opponents sought to discredit Christianity
by disgracing its female face. In the male-dominated Greco-Roman world, antagonists
could easily call into question the credibility of one of the key witnesses to the
resurrection merely by pointing out her gender. Apologists, therefore, faced an uphill
battle as they were forced to contend with numerous accusations related to female
followers and adherents. In light of this dynamic, disputed readings that both dealt
with women and reflected themes and concerns indicative of the apologetic corpus
would lend additional support to the thesis of this work. In fact, several instances do
surface in which scribes appear to have manipulated terms and verses related to the
presence of gunai=kev (women or wives) and sexual content in ways consistent with
apologetic themes.
Prior to examining those variant readings, however, a bit more needs to be said
with regard to women in early Christianity. Among the many recent and fine works
dedicated to the subject of women in early Christianity, MacDonalds possesses
particular virtue for this present study because it focuses attention on female visibility
in pagan critiques of early Christianity with an eye toward informing our knowledge
of early Christian texts.133 In her treatment of works by Pliny the Younger, Galen,
130
Cels. II.55, translated by H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 109.

Cels. II.59; H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 112.
132
Cels. II.60; H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 113.
133
M. MacDonald, Early Christian Women, 51. Though well beyond the limits of this study,
it is incumbent upon us here to recognize at some point the complex difficulties inherent in the
study of women in antiquity. Another strong feature of MacDonalds study is her due concern
for methodological issues related to these complexities and her prescription that a system of
checks and balances be maintained among anthropological, social-scientific, feminist, and
historical modes of interpretation. Each discipline, she recognizes, offers insights and points of
131
178
Lucian, Apuleius, and Celsus, she asserts that pagan males in general negatively
appraised the presence and visibility of women in the Jesus movement. For example,
Pliny saw women as inclined toward religious excesses and prone to superstition, while
Galen described them as biologically inferior to males. Apuleius depicted them as
sexually promiscuous sorceresses. Lucian mocked them as naive and susceptible to the
spells of charlatans such as Peregrinus. Celsus, as noted above, criticized Christianity
itself as a religion born of the dubious initiative of a hysterical female, and, in
MacDonalds understanding, connected the secrecy of Christian gatherings with the
illegitimate exercise of power by women in the public sphere. MacDonald, then, argues
that pagan perceptions of female believers significantly shaped their perceptions of
Christianity as a whole and led to their conclusions that Christianity was a movement
that was dangerous, promiscuous and seditious.134
Numerous other fine studies in the last quarter century have reached similar
conclusions with regard to how women were treated in nascent Christianity,
particularly in terms of their roles as leaders in the early church. In particular, Karen
Jo Torjesen with compelling force showed how the migration of Christianity from the
private, domestic, female-oriented sphere to the public, male-dominated sphere
coincided directly with the ecclesiastical subjugation of women, particularly in terms
of their relegation from leadership roles.135 Also, Elizabeth Schssler Fiorenza, in
regard to the paucity of references to women in Christian sources, described what she
accurately terms an androcentric selection and transmission of early Christian
traditions.136 Here she challenged the verdict that infrequent references to women in
canonical sources accurately represent the secondary and relatively inconsequential
place females held in the early Jesus movement. The legitimacy of such a judgment
would, she noted, necessarily rest on the presupposition that Christian writings
consisted of objective factual accounts. This presupposition, however, would deny
completely the insights gleaned from biblical criticism that have exposed the pastoral
and propagandistic functions of the canonical scriptures as well as the influence of
social forces upon the historical church. Continuing her forthright appraisal, she wrote:
The early Christian authors have selected, redacted, and reformulated their traditional
sources and materials with reference to their theological intentions and practical
objectives. None of the early Christian writings and traditions is free from any of
these tendencies. All early Christian writings, even the Gospels and Acts, intend to
speak to actual problems and situations of the early church and illuminate them
correction and control for the other. On methodological considerations see idem, Early Christian
Women, 1327.
134
135
Karen Jo Torjesen, When Women Were Priests (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993).
But see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), who argues that
much of the bias against women that evolved in early Christianity was rooted in the churchs
struggle with Gnosticism.
136
Elizabeth Schssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 4853.
179
theologically. We can assume, therefore, that this methodological insight applies

equally to the traditions and sources about women in early Christianity. Since the
early Christian communities and authors lived in a predominantly patriarchal world
and participated in its mentality, it is likely that the scarcity of information about
women is conditioned by the androcentric traditioning and redaction of the early
Christian authors. This applies particularly to the Gospels and Acts, since they were
written toward the end of the first century. Many of the traditions and information
about the activities of women in early Christianity are probably irretrievable because
the androcentric selection or redaction process saw these as either unimportant or
as threatening.137
The evidence Fiorenza marshaled in support of her lucid discussion included, in

part, reference to variant readings in the New Testament tradition that exhibit an
active elimination of women from the biblical text.138 For example, she conducted the
reader to Colossians 4:15 and pointed out how feminine elements in the text had been
either omitted or replaced in Western and Byzantine manuscripts with masculine
elements. Codex Bezae is particularly notorious in this regard. To Acts 1:14, the phrase
and children is affixed to the women said to be gathered with the apostles. The
effect of this change is that it makes it appear that these women constitute part of the
wives and families of the apostles rather than that they are followers in their own
right. In similar fashion, Codex D also edits Acts 17:4 and 17:12 so not a few of the
noble women are subserviently reclassified as wives of the noble men.139
Other scholars have affirmed Schssler Fiorenzas observations about how
androcentric selection influenced scribes in their transmission of the text of the New
Testament, some with reference to the Gospels. Let us turn to some of the variant
readings that apprise us regarding how scribes treated some of the women they
encountered in their exemplars.
Most commentators make little over the variant readings located in Matthew 19:29
and Mark 10:29, where h@ gunai=ka (or woman/wife) is inserted into the list of
sacrifices persons may be forced to make in order to follow Jesus. The amendment is
easily and most often attributed to assimilation to Luke 18:29.140 Yet, it should be
noted, first, that the more common pattern of assimilation is Luke and Mark to
Matthew, not Matthew and Mark to Luke.141 Also, we should not overlook how this
137
139
Elizabeth Schssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 52. Schssler Fiorenza also reports how
Bezae eliminates reference to a female convert named Damaris in Acts 17:34, and inverts the
order of Prisca and Aquila in Acts 18:26 out of an apparent concern to insure that Aquila be
viewed as the primary teacher of Apollos.
140
See, e.g., B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 50 in reference to the Matthean text; V. Taylor,
Mark, 43334, and C. S. Mann, Mark, 403 in reference to Mark.
141
This was also true for Mark. Since among the Gospels Matthew was the best-known and
most frequently cited, the general tendency (though certainly not without exception) is that
Mark and Luke were assimilated to Matthew. See J. K. Elliott and Ian Moir, Manuscripts and the
138
180
insertion changes the previously expressed attitude of these Gospels with respect to
wives or women. Even if they are following Luke, a point of which I remain
unconvinced, the fact remains that some scribes have intentionally chosen to include
wives/women among the things one will be rewarded for giving up in pursuit of the
Jesus and the gospel.142 Husbands, it should be noted, are not mentioned in any of
the Synoptic Gospels.143 The adjusted readings, therefore, generate in both Matthew
and Mark a portrayal of a comprehensive willingness on the part of believers to submit
to ascetic discipline, even to the repudiation of nuptial union. This stands in sharp
contrast to the pagan perception that Christians were profligate in satisfying their
lustful appetites. It also echoes the sentiments of Christian apologists who offered
direct commentary on the willing celibacy of Christians.
This willingness to surrender pleasures of the flesh in deference to pursuing
intimacy with God is seen with the greatest clarity in Athenagoras. Christians, he
describes, are persons far removed from promiscuous activity; even a lustful glance is
forbidden.144 Married Christians engage in coitus for the sole purpose of procreation
(paidopoih/sasqai).145 Yet, If to remain a virgin (parqeni/a|) and abstain from
sexual intercourse brings us closer to God, and if to allow ourselves nothing more than
a lustful thought leads us away from God, then, since we flee the thought, much more
will we refuse to commit the deed.146 Similar sentiments may be located in Tatian, as
noted above, and Theophilus of Antioch.147
Ben Witherington not only echoes Schssler Fiorenzas treatment of the variant
readings in Acts (and comments on some additional ones), but he invites consideration
of additional disputed readings beyond the confines of Acts. One to which he directs
attention is Jesus teaching on divorce expressed in Matthew 5:32, a text that in its
original form castigates as an adulterer either a woman or a man who divorces a
mate. The text translates, But I say to you, Any man who divorces his wife (except
for fornication) causes her to commit adultery, and any man who might marry a woman so
Text of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 67.

142
For Matthew, C*.3 L W Q f 13 (33) Maj 579 892 lat syc.p.h sa mae bo testify to the
inclusion of or wife/woman. For Mark the witnesses for like amendment are A C Y f 13 Maj
f q syp.h boms. The witnesses that support exclusion as the original reading include the best of
the Alexandrian, Caesarean, and Western witnesses and appear compelling.
143
Perhaps the failure of any evangelist or scribe to add husbands to this list merely
reflects the male-dominant culture of the era. Yet, it is also possible that this omission is itself
apologetic in character, reflecting the concern expressed by pagan critics that Christianity is
destructive of the paterfamilias so revered in Greco-Roman culture.
144
Leg. 32.2. W. R. Schoedel, 7879.
145
146
147
Ad Auto. III.15.
181
divorced himself commits adultery.148 Codex Bezae and several Old Latin witnesses,
however, omit the second half of the verse (in italics). B. Metzger explains the
omission as the product of overly-scrupulous scribes who believed the second half of
the verse proved the natural consequence of the first half of the verse; thus, they
erased it as redundant.149 Witherington, though, in keeping with Schssler Fiorenzas
obser-vations, offers an alternative explanation. He suggests that it may result from
the tendency of the Western text to highlight and protect male privilege, while also
relegating women to a place in the background.150 Along with his further observation
that what is omitted here is material that reflects negatively on men, we are left with
a reading that renders adultery a crime that is in praxis exclusively female.151 To be
sure, the male might cause his wife to sin by putting her aside with a bill of divorce, but
the scarlet letter may never be assigned to his forehead.
For another example of the scribal treatment of women, B. Ehrman directs our
attention to a subtle modification that occurs in Luke 8:3.152 As information for
historians, the pericope in which this verse is located has been of no small importance.
Luke, with his penchant for elevatingat least in comparison to his peer
evangeliststhe role of women in the ministry of Jesus, reports that Jesus, for the
financial support of his ministry, depended upon a group of female benefactors.153 H.
148
Minor variations appear in various manuscript traditions, but the vast majority of
readings apart from several Western witnesses incorporates some version of this phrase
(5:32b). See UBS4 for a fuller citation of witnesses and minor variations.
149
150
Ben Witherington, The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the Western Text in Acts, JBL
103 (1984), 8284.
151
For another treatment of this reading that arrives at a similar conclusion see B. Ehrman,
The Text of the Gospels, Codex Bezae, Lunel, 116. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, on the
other hand, treat it casually with the report that the sentence is omitted in some manuscripts.
Idem, Matthew, 65.
152
B. Ehrman, Text of the Gospels, Codex Bezae, Lunel, 116. See also Ben Witherington
III, On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other DisciplesLuke 8:13,
ZNW 70 (1979), 243248. Moreover, I am indebted for part of the following discussion to my
colleague, L. Stephanie Cobb, whose insights were summarized and shared with me in her
unpublished paper, ...Also Some Women: An Investigation of Luke 8:3, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, April 1997.
153
Although, it should be noted, in recent years scholars have begun to question the
positive appraisal of Lukes view of women. See, e.g., Elizabeth Tetlow, Women and Ministry in
the New Testament (New York: Paulist Press, 1980); Mary Rose DAngelo, Women in
LukeActs: A Redactional View, JBL 109 (1990) 44161; Ross Shepard Kraemer, Her Share of
the Blessings (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992); and Elizabeth Schssler Fiorenza, In
Memory of Her. Reflecting on his survey of the pertinent literature, Robert Karris characterizes
the debate as a new storm center. For his balanced, insightful remarks and extensive
bibliography see idem, Women and Discipleship in Luke, CBQ 56 (1994) 120.
182
Conzelmann even locates in this pericope the foundations of the later ecclesiastical
office of deaconess.154
The disputed reading of interest to us here consists of a presumably
inconsequential exchange of dative pronouns, the singular au0tw|= to or from the plural
au0toi=v. It is conceivable, in noting that the variation consists of a mere one to three
letters, to dismiss this variation as mechanical in nature. Yet, the substance of the
change proves weighty. The plural pronoun locates its antecedent in Jesus and the
Twelve, while the singular pronoun refers solely to Jesus. Both A. Plummer and J.
Fitzmyer consider the plural the better attested reading, and views the singular with
suspicion on the basis of its presumed harmonization to Matthew 27:55 and/or Mark
15:41.155 B. Metzger includes the suggestion that introduction of the singular pronoun
may have been due to Christocentric correction, due perhaps to Marcion.156
B. Ehrman, however, sees in the reference to Marcion evidence of the prior text,
one clearly attested as early as the mid-second century.157 R. Karris, drawing extensively
on the work of Carla Ricci, also questions the consensus reading.158 The structure of
the lengthy sentence in Luke 8:13 is fashioned around two subjects, Jesus and the
women, each governing a verb; the phrase, and the Twelve with him, appears
structurally as a tacked on afterthought. Yet, most English translations, Karris points
out, make this phrase the main clause, and reduce the clause featuring the women to
a dependent clause. C. Ricci, according to Karris, also points out that the contention
that au0tw|= stems from harmonization with Mark 15:41 and Matthew 27:65 is flawed.
If the tradition behind Mark and Matthew had specifically mentioned that the women
served not only Jesus but also his disciples, then the evangelists could have reported
thisi.e., used the plural pronounin the context of the passion, even after the
departure of the Twelve. Thus, even if the singular pronoun owes its immediate
location in Luke 8:3 to scribal harmonization, it conveys authentic tradition, and the
plural pronoun au0toi=v is secondary.159
Such reasoning calls us to reconsider the consensus and entertain the strong
possibility that the scribal modification of pronouns in Luke 8:3 moved in the direction
from the singular to the plural. If this view is correct, despite the subtlety of the
change, it portends weighty ramifications. Where the singular pronoun has the effect
of identifying the women as the personal patrons of Jesus himself, and ostensibly
places them on an equal footing with his male followers, the plural pronoun serves to
redistribute their vassalage among Jesus and the Twelve. This, in practical terms,
154
Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (Translated by Geoffrey Buswell; New York:
Harper & Row, 1961), 47.
155
A. Plummer, Luke, 21617; J. Fitzmyer, Luke IIX, 698.
156
157
B. Ehrman, Text of the Gospels, Codex Bezae, Lunel, 116.
158
R. Karris, Women and Discipleship in Luke, 67, who follows Carla Ricci, Maria di
Magdala e le molte altre: Donne sul cammino di Ges (La dracma 2; Naples: DAuria, 1991), 16769.
159
See R. Karris, Women and Discipleship in Luke, 7.
183
assigns their ministry to the traditional domestic sphere, which to the vast majority of
the Greco-Roman populace would have been perceived as secondary in nature. The
women serve and support the men, who in turn engage in direct, peer partnership with
Jesus. The shift of pronouns in Luke 8:3 represents, therefore, an example of the
scribal relegation of women.
This contention is made even more likely when one compares this reading with
two other texts, beginning with Mark 15:41. In speaking of the women viewing the
crucifixion from afar, the evangelist lists among them three particular women, Mary
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses, and Salome. The writer
continues his identification of these women by pointing out that these were the ones
who, when he was in Galilee, followed him and ministered to/with him (kai\ dihko/noun
au0tw|=).
Yet, once again Codex Bezae, in the company of a few other witnesses (C D 579
n), can be seen modifying a reference to three named women serving Jesus (=him,
au0tw|=). Also, in the modification of Luke 23:55, we view evidence of scribes
tampering with a pronoun. Against the rest of the tradition that translates, The
women, who had come with him (au0tw|=) from Galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and
how his body was laid..., Bezae and a few other witnesses omit au0tw|=, with him.
Although most commentators make nothing of this change, George Rice observes that
the effect of this omission is to distance the association between Jesus and these
women. The absence of the dative pronoun removes any trace of a connection to
Jesus; they are connected only to one another as traveling companions from Galilee,
nothing more.160
Still another variant reading worth considering in this regard is located in the Dura
fragment (Parchment 24) believed by some to be from Tatians Diatessaron.161 The first
160
G. Rice, Western Non-Interpolations, 8.

For a facsimile, text, and critical introduction to the fragment see Carl H. Kraeling, A
Greek Fragment of Tatians Diatessaron from Dura (SD III; London: Christophers, 1935). For a lucid
and insightful discussion of the questions and arguments regarding the relationship of the
Fragment to Tatians Diatessaron and its implications see William L. Petersen, Tatians
Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1994), esp. 196203. I borrow heavily from his discussion in order to offer this brief summary.
Unearthed in excavations conducted in 1933, this revealing fragment is arguably only eighty
years removed from Tatians harmony and offers sufficient evidence for some scholars to
surmise that his Diatessaron was composed originally in Greek and not Syriac, as had been
previously supposed. Kraeling supports this his thesis, in part, with what William Petersen terms
a rhetorical argument favoring a Greek original; Kraeling conjectures that from the
beginning there existed a need for a Greek Diatessaron if Christianity was to spread in the cities
of the Mesopotamian lowlands (Kraeling, A Greek Fragment, 17). D. Plooij (A Fragment of
Tatians Diatessaron in Greek, ET 46 (1934/5), 4716) challenged this position, however, with
his observation that one reading in the Fragment could not be located in any reading of the
Diatessaron, but did agree with a reading in the Gospel of Peter. Plooij argued further that, in sharp
contrast to the numerous Diatessaronic readings located in the writings of Aphrahat and
161
184
line of the reconstructed fragment reads as follows:

...Zebedai=ou kai\ Salw&mh kai\ ai9 gunai=kev tw=n sunakolouqhsa&ntwn au0tw|=
a0po\ th=v Galilai/av...162
In comparing this with the relevant canonical parallels (Mark 15:4041, Matthew
27:5556, and Luke 23:49), Carl Kraeling identified this as a modification that, in his
words, so drastically changes the statements of the Gospels concerning the women
Ephrem, no Greek Father quotes a single line from Tatians Diatessaron. In his judgment, this
cast serious doubt on the likelihood that the Diatessaron was penned originally in Greek.
Moreover, he declared against Kraeling that a Gospel produced for the benefit of evangelizing
the native population would have more likely been written in Syriac.
F. C. Burkitt (The Dura Fragment of Tatian, JTS 36 (1935), 2559) disagreed, arguing
that disagreements between the Old Syriac and the Fragment indicated that their textual Vorlage
was not the same. M.-J. Lagrange (Deux nouveaux textes relatifs lEvangile. I. Un fragment
grec du Diatessaron de Tatien, RB 44 (1935), 3217), following the evidence adduced by
Burkitt, nevertheless settled on Greek as the original language in which Tatian produced his
Diatessaron. W. L. Petersen (Tatians Diatessaron, 200) qualifies the data adduced by Plooij that no
Greek Father reproduces Diatessaronic readings, noting that more recent scholarship has
located such citations in the Homilies of Macarius and in the hymns of Romanos Melodos. Still,
he notes further, both have links with Syria.
Petersen reports finding compelling the additional linguistic arguments favoring a Syriac
original produced by A. Baumstark (Ein weiteres Bruchstck griechischen Diatessaron
textes, Oriens Christianus 36 (1939), 115, n. 1). Petersen then states, Together with Plooijs
arguments, Baumstarks evidence has convinced a majority of experts that the Dura Fragment
is not proof of a Greek original Diatessaronif, indeed, it is part of a Greek Diatessaron at all,
and not, as Plooij suggested, part of an independent Passion Harmony (Petersen, Tatians
Diatessaron, 225). D. C. Parker, D. G. K. Taylor, and M. S. Goodacre (The Dura-Europos
Gospel Harmony, in D. G. K. Taylor, ed. Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts: The
Papers of the First Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Atlanta: SBL,
1999), 192228), in fact, conclude that the Dura Fragment does represent a Greek original of
a Gospel harmony, but specifically one distinct from Tatians Diatessaron (228).
The implications of these arguments for the variant reading currently under consideration
consist mainly of how they frustrate any attempt to locate the variant reading chronologically
and/or contextually with any confidence. If dependence on the Diatessaron could be determined
with a greater degree of certainty, we could with some assurance posit very narrow temporal
parameters and a fairly certain context that gave rise to this particular variant reading. As it
stands, however, the Fragment still serves linguistically and literarily as a witness to the practice
on the part of some scribe of intentionally modifying his exemplar of the New Testament in
concert with his own agenda related to the perception of women in the movement, whether he
was reproducing Tatian or some other Gospel harmony.
162
C. Kraelings reconstruction of this line of Dura Fragment 24 appears as follows:
[zebed] AIOU KAI SALWMH K[a]I AI GUNAIKES [twn su]NAKOLOUQHSANTWN
A[ut]W. C. H. Kraeling, Greek Fragment, back coverlet.
185
who followed Jesus to Jerusalem.163 What he was referring to is how Tatians text, in
place of the women who were traveling with him, reads the wives of those who were
traveling with him. A. F. J. Klijn minimized the variation, identifying it merely as the
result of a mechanical error, the product of the omission of a single letter in the Syriac
original.164 Kraeling, though, had argued that Greek was the original language of the
work. E. C. Colwell joined ranks with Kraeling, against Klijn and theorized that the
reading more likely stemmed from what he called vital interests in the church.165
Specifically, he expressed the probability that Tatian considered the report of the
presence of women as a liability to the Christian movement. I am convinced, he
explained further, that the variant in the Dura fragment is an evidence of apologetic
interest either on the part of Tatian or on the part of the scribe who wrote this
copy.166
Of similar mind but pressing this matter even further, M.-J. Lagrange traced the
source of the textual modification to the apologist himself, arguing that Tatian sought
to remove all elements of suspicion of immorality from the account.167 Colwell and
Lagrange, then, would convince us that this reading resulted from a concern with how
the presence of women in the Christian movement could be potentially misunderstood
by outsiders. These three variant readings, two of which appear in Codex Bezae, all
appear to be the result of a desire on the part of scribesor in the case of the Dura
fragment, an apologetically-driven harmonizerto place distance between Jesus and
his female followers. These readings also provide additional transcriptional support for
Ehrmans external argument for the originality of the singular pronoun in Luke 8:3.
Changing course slightly, let us examine how Codex Bezae treats the text of Luke
4:39. Most manuscripts describe Jesus healing Peters mother-in-law as follows:
kai\ e0pista\v e0pa&nw au0th=v e0peti/mhsen tw|= puretw|= kai\ a0fh=ken au0th/n0
paraxh=ma de\ a0nasta=sa dihko/nei au0toi=v
And he stood over her and rebuked the fever and it left her; and immediately she
rose and served them.
Codex D, however, transmits the verse as follows:

...kai\ a0fh=ken au0th/n [semi-colon omitted] paraxrh=ma w#ste a0nasta=san
au0th/n diakonei=n au0toi=v.
163
C. H. Kraeling, Greek Fragment, 8.

A. F. J. Klijn, A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts (Utrecht,
1949), 101.
165
E. C. Colwell, Method in Locating a Newly Discovered Manuscript, 38.
166
E. C. Colwell, Method in Locating, 39.
167
M.-J. Lagrange, Deux nouveaux textes relativs l'vangile, Revue Biblique, XLIV
(1935), 325. Cited by E. C. Colwell, Method in Locating, 39.
164
186

...and immediately it (the fever) left her so that (with the result that) she rose and
served them.
Notice here that the scribe has transformed the second half of the compound sentence
into a result clause.168 Although some might dismiss this as a stylistic idiosyncracy on
the part of the scribe, I am struck by how this editorial change in at least two ways
alters the narrative. First, in Bezaes version, Jesus does not merely bring the woman
from illness to health; her healing results also in her becoming one who serves Jesus
and his followers. Thus, what is transmitted by all the other manuscripts as simply the
first of Marks healing miracles may be said in Codex D to perform double duty as
both a healing miracle and a type of call narrative. Second, however, this slight but
significant shift of emphasis also results in reducing the narrative identity of Peters
mother-in-law. Where her act of service in the original text is an independent act of
will on her partan act of reverence of gratitude, perhaps, but nonetheless an act of
her willin its modified form the action of Peters mother-in-law becomes a result of
a mere reaction to Jesus act of healing. She is rendered all but invisible, while Jesus is
elevated as the singular focal point of the story. This is no longer quid pro quo, no longer
an interaction between peers. Her serving is, in Bezaes rendering, no longer an active
and deliberate response to the merciful healing power of Jesus; it is merely the reactive,
almost passive, result of being healed by him. Thus, in the miracle story as it is
rendered by the scribe responsible for this portion of Codex Bezae, the dynamic
influence of Jesus is elevated while the narrative identity of Peters mother-in-law is
substantially reduced. This narrative shift reflects the evolutionary shifts we outlined
earlier in which the visible status and presence of women in the church were reduced
and depreciated.
Another informing reading appears in some transcriptions of John 4:25. This
modified reading occurs in the Johannine account of Jesus conversation with the
Samaritan woman. At one point in this discussion, the Samaritan woman responds I
know that Messiah, the one called Christ, is coming; whenever he might come, he will
disclose to us all things. So reads a highly impressive cadre of witnesses, including P66*
P75 * A B C D Ws Q Y 086 f 1 Maj lat syc.p.h pbo Orpt.169 Apparently this set of
witnesses is impressive enough that most commentators simply accept it as the
original text and fail to treat the variant. Yet, the alternate reading, which I agree
appears on the basis of inferior witnesses to be clearly secondary here, once again
seems to adapt the testimony of a female character in a way that mirrors the social
conventions of the apologetic era. A number of witnesses (among them P66c c L N
168
Grammatically, w#ste with the infinitive indicates result. See F. Blass and A. Debrunner,
A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Robert W. Funk, trans.;
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), Section 391, 19799.
169
It is interesting to note that the witness of Origen is split with regard to this reading. In
fact, his acquaintance of both readings is reflected in his Commentary on John. For the citations
see Bart Ehrman, Eldon Epp, and Gordon Fee, The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the Writings of
Origen, Volume I, SBLNTGF 3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 129.
187
f 13 33 1241 itf syhmg copsa ac2 Orpt Cyrlem) indicate that certain scribes modified the
singular first person oi]da, I know, to the plural form, oi1damen, we know. The
potential significance of this subtle change rests in the fact that this transcription
produces a reading in which the individual expression of personal belief issuing from
a lone and morally suspect woman is recast as a corporate creed, i.e., the expression
of faith that represented the established beliefs of a religious community. In this way,
from a narrative perspective, the presence of this woman at the well is reduced, in a
way that mirrors the efforts of the early church to placate pagan sensitivities to the
visibility and leadership status of women in nascent Christianity.
Another instance of this pattern may have been imposed on the text at the
beginning of the annunciation narrative in the modification of Luke 1:28. Let me
acknowledge at the outset that the following discussion involves some speculation, but
it is speculation mindful of the Sitz im Leben with which we are dealing and of the
variant readings we have just discussed. Luke narrates that the angel Gabriel
approaches Mary in Nazareth and addresses her, Hail, O favored one! A. Plummer
rightly calls attention to the alliteration and verbal connection between Xai=re and
kexaritwme/nh.170 Indications are that Luke has carefully crafted his story, paying
close attention to language. Then follows the benediction, The Lord is with you (o9
ku/riov meta\ sou=). At this point it can be observed by the testimony of certain
witnesses (A C D X G D P latt syr eth goth Tert Eus) that some scribes have
duplicated Elizabeths outburst, Blessed are you among women (1:42), and placed
it upon the lips of the angel Gabriel. The UBSGNT committee expresses confidence
that this is the case, giving their appraisal of the transcriptional genesis of the phrase
a {B} rating. B. Metzger adds that members could offer no plausible reason for why
such a wide range of witnesses ( B L W Y f1 565 700 1241 syrpal copsa, bo arm geo)
would have omitted it if it were original.171 Manuscript 565 even included in its margin
the note, not found in the ancient copies.172 Plummer rests after labeling this an
interpolation borrowed from verse 42.173 J. Fitzmyer is similarly content.174
Although these scholars offer solid reasons for resolving the textual question, their
observations beg the historical question of why these scribes went to the trouble of
borrowing the content of verse 42 and inserting it earlier in the text. What motive
could have inspired this exercise? On this matter they are mute. If, however, we
recognize once again that our context is a Greco-Roman world in which the male is
considered superior to the female, we may unearth a clue. The words the scribes
intentionally imposed on their exemplar were, eu0loghme/nh su\ e0n gunaici/n, Blessed
are you among women (my italics). What scribes have added, therefore, is a phrase that
qualifies the status of Mary. She remains blessed, to be sure, and is raised above all her
170
A. Plummer, Luke, 22.

172
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 12324.
173
A. Plummer, Luke, 22.
174
J. Fitzmyer, Luke IIX, 346.
171
188
peers; but her peers are singularly identified to be women only. She is elevated above
all women, perhaps; but she remains privileged only in relation to other females. As
the scribes have rewritten the story, they have insured that no one can think she has
been raised to a higher status than that possessed by males.
Admittedly, not all scribal variants relegated women to an inferior status. For
instance, scribes who omitted and he did not know her until... in Matthew 1:25 and
firstborn in Luke 2:7 appear to have subscribed to a belief in the perpetual virginity
of Mary, a belief that developed alongside the evolving high christology of protoorthodoxy.175 Davies and Allison address both of these texts on precisely this point.176
They point out that, although e1wv following a negative does not necessarily indicate
that there did come a point at which marital relations ensued, had the evangelist
maintained a belief in perpetual virginity (as did the second-century writer of the
Protoevangelium of James), Matthew would have almost certainly chosen a less ambiguous
phrase.177 Likewise Luke, they continue, would scarcely have written firstborn to
identify Jesus if the matter of Marys continuing chastity was an issue. Yet, it became
an issue early on, certainly by the second century. Already in Protoevangelium of James, as
noted, we can observe this interest in Marys maintained virginity, and in Aristides we
observe reference to Mary as the theotokos.178
In reviewing the relationship of these amended readings to apologetic interests,
recall that the Roman Empire was a mans world, a male world. Consider how these
scribal modifications altered the perception of women portrayed in the Gospels. Most
often, the scribally-engineered text renders women subservient to males or moves
them to the background of the Gospel tradition. Females are elevated, in general, only
when it serves a larger (read male) purpose, such as the heightened deification of Jesus
through emphasis on his virgin birth. Otherwise, their leadership roles are downplayed; their maternal instincts and spousal relationships are lifted up as definitive; and,
when in doubt, they are ushered into the shadows. Some scribes, it appears, even
reconfigured the healing of Peters mother-in-law from an invitation to health into a
call to service. As benefactors, women were shifted away from an intimate association
with Jesus himself and recast as peripheral supporters of the general cause mainly led
and carried out by men. As witnesses to the resurrection, their voices were rendered
adjunct to those of the men who saw the risen Christ, even if scribes had to introduce
such male witnesses into their exemplars.
In short, it can be observed that, on occasion, scribes modified their exemplars
in order to put women in a place condoned by Greco-Roman culture. In many
respects, this pattern closely mirrors treatment of women by various Christian
175
It deserves mention here that some manuscripts assimilate Matthew 1:25 to Luke 2:7,
adding her firstborn son at this point. See B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 8.
176
W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew, 219.
177
W. D. Davies and D. Allison, Matthew, 219. For the reference to the Protevangelium see
Prot. Jas. 19.320.2.
178
J. R. Harris, Ap. Aris. TS I, 29. Cf. 2, 3, 79, 25.
189
apologists. In applying scriptural exegesis to their discussions of women, patristic

writers generally turned to texts that offered the basis for limiting rather than liberating
women.179
ALLS WELL THAT ENDS WELL: MARK 16:920
In concluding this chapter, I would like to bring together several motifs that have
surfaced previously in this discussion and apply them to a series of variant readings
widely recognized by members of the guild as one of the most compelling conundrums
faced by textual criticsthe several and distinct endings of the Gospel according to
Mark. Scholars locate within the textual tradition four distinct endings to Marks
Gospel. For purposes of this discussion I will, for the most part, follow Vincent
Taylors nomenclature. To the verses traditionally identified as Mark 16:920 Taylor
attaches the name, The Longer Ending. This reading is derived from a number of
witnesses (most notably A C D D Q f 13 28 33 565 700 Maj aur c ff2 vg syrc.p.h.pal
copbo,fay) and is referenced by Irenaeus, Didymus, Epiphanius, Ambrose and Augustine.
In addition, both Jerome and Eusebius report knowing about manuscripts containing
the ending. By his tag, The Shorter Ending, Taylor refers to the relatively terse
conclusion that reads as follows:
But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And
after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred
and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.180
This Shorter Ending is found in conjunction with verses 920 in most of the sources
that include it (L Y 083 099 0112 274mg 579 k syhl mg copsamss bomss ethmss,TH ), although
it serves as the final words of the Old Latin manuscript k. Taylor employs the familiar
phrase The Freer Logion to identify the scribal embellishment of verse 16:14 that
is located only in Codex W, although evidence in Jerome demonstrates that the reading
was in circulation during the fourth century. The text reads as follows:
179
As noted by Elizabeth A. Clark, Women in the Early Church (Wilmington, Delaware:
Michael Glazier, 1983), 16. Prior to advancing this notion, however, she enlisted the term
ambivalence as the most fitting characterization of the attitude of the Church Fathers toward
women. These writers, she noted, portray females as both gift and curse, brimming with lust and
fleeing sexual encounter, weak-willed on the one hand, unwavering in the face of martyrdom
on the other (p. 15). Certainly, she is accurate here. In my discussion of women in the context
of apologetic interests, therefore, I do not mean to imply either a consistency or a unilateral
approach on the part of Christian apologists. Rather, I am highlighting what I do believe is the
more dominant theme located among apologetic writers and how those themes correspond to
scribal emendations of the text.
180
The translation is from B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 12324.
190

And they excused themselves saying, This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under
Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean
things of the spirits. Therefore reveal thy righteousness nowthus they spoke to
Christ. And Christ replied to them, The term of years of Satans power has been
fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was
delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order
that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is
in heaven.181
Although Codex Washingtonianus (W) constitutes the sole witness to this reading,
evidence in Jerome demonstrates that this reading was in circulation during the fourth
century. Finally, and this is the single amendment I will offer to Taylors nomenclature,
there is the text that ends quite suddenly with 16:8 that I prefer to label the Abrupt
Ending.182 Strikingly, it will be seen, some of the most dramatic examples of
apologetic textual reinforcement occur in the notorious amendments to the ending of
Marks Gospel.
Scholars have long recognized the strong resemblance that certain features of
these Markan appendages bear to other parts of the canon. Westcott and Hort, for
example, extricated the quandary of the shorter ending by asserting that it resulted
from a scribe who, dissatisfied with the abrupt conclusion of 16:8, constructed his own
denouement out of the contents of Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:912, 47; and John 20:21.
The longer ending, they found much more trying, but finally settled on the notion that
a scribe located this condensed fifth narrative of the Forty Days in another source
and conscripted it as a more fitting conclusion to Mark. Much more has been written
on this conundrum since the days of Westcott and Hort, and to delve too deeply into
this maze of readings would be to open Pandoras box.183
181
Again, I have employed the translation of B. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 124.

Although in large measure I subscribe to the opinion embraced by the vast majority of
scholars that this is, in fact, Marks original ending, I do not wish to poison the well or fail
to acknowledge that the question remains a sensitive and controversial one to some members
of the guild. I therefore choose here to affix to this ending a more neutral label.
183
The literature on this topic is vast and complex. Westcott and Hort dedicated their
longest (by far) note to this issue, describing it as almost unrivalled in interest and importance,
stating further that no other that approaches it in interest and importance stands any longer
seriously in need of full discussion. [Introduction, Notes, 2851]. Caspar Ren Gregory
asserted that the closing verses of Mark neither belonged to the Gospel nor deserved to be
included in the New Testament, and Vincent Taylor was led to speak of the decisive nature
of the evidence in supporting the almost universally held conclusion that these verses were
not part of original Mark [C. Gregory, The Canon and Text of the New Testament (New York:
Scribner, 1924), 513; V. Taylor, Mark, 610]. William R. Farmer, however, in his classic study on
the subject, took exception with these statements, believing that the evidence for drawing this
conclusion was at the very least indecisive. Moreover, he determined that, to the extent the
evidence could be considered to favor one side or the other, it favored inclusion [The Last Twelve
Verses of Mark, SNTSMS 25 (London and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 109].
182
191
Still, despite the complexities related to this constellation of variant endings,

contemporary scholarship widely agrees that original Mark ended with 16:8 and that
Mark 16:920 in its several forms is the product of scribal interpolation.184 Even
swimming against this current, W. R. Farmer invoked the methodology we are
currently employing as offering some hope for shedding light on this textual problem
when he declared:
The best hope seems to lie in new papyrological discoveries, and in further progress
in our understanding of the history of the development of text types emerging in the
second and third centuries. The place of patristic studies in this development, and
especially that of Origen, would seem to be especially important.185
It is beyond the scope of this work to untangle this Gordian knot of textual
problems.186 It seems adequate here, however, to recognize with the vast majority of
scholars that the disputed endings of Mark all represent the products of scribal labors.
Yet, the determination that Mark 16:920 is either a montage constructed out of
material from the other Gospels or an independent compressed narrative is, in my
judgment, at best an intermediate conclusion. We are still faced with a text in need of
a context. That is, we still need to understand what forces have motivated and
influenced the construction and interpolation of these verses. My contention, of
course, is that apologetic interests constituted, at least in part, a force that encouraged
these scribes. Therefore, the task left to us here is to compare the content of these
readings to apologetic themes and strategies in order to discover whether and to what
W. Lane contends that the originality of the abrupt ending is supported by the fact that
Matthew and Luke follow Mark until verse 8, and then fork in completely independent
directions [W. Lane, Mark, NICNT, 601]. C. E. B. Cranfield conjectures that 16:920 constitute
an early but non- Markan catechetical summary that was probably attached to the Gospel before
the middle of the second century [Mark, Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary, 472]. Bruce
Metzgers Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament offers a brief but informing
consideration of the four endings of the Markan Gospel (122128). For more on the
manuscript evidence see also J. K. Elliot, The Text and Language of the Endings to Marks
Gospel, TZ 27 (1971), 25562.
184
C. S. Mann (Mark, AB, 673) expresses the consensus well: Not even among writers who
reject the notion that Mark deliberately ended his gospel at 16:8 is there to be found any
suggestion that vv. 920 are from the hand of the evangelist. The vocabulary is not Markan, the
whole tenor of the pericope is far different in tone from all we have seen of Mark, and even at
first glance it appears to be a collage of a series of resurrection traditions. Again, though, see
W. R. Farmer, Last Twelve Verses, 109.
185
W. R. Farmer, Last Twelve Verses, 109.
186
For other useful, more thoroughgoing discussions of the issues related to these verses
see, e.g., B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 333360, and Frederick Wisse, The Nature and
Purpose of Redactional Changes in Early Christian Texts: The Canonical Gospels, in The Gospel
Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission, ed. William L. Petersen
(South Bend, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1989), 3953.
192
extent apologetic motives may have influenced the fashioning of the finale to Marks
Gospel.
THE SHORTER ENDING
Let us consider, first, The Shorter Ending.187 Attested mainly by four Uncials
dating from the seventh to ninth century (L Y 099 0112), Old Latin k, the margin of
the Harclean Syriac, several Sahidic and Boharic manuscripts, the reading once again
translates as follows:
But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him (literally those around Peter)
all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through
them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal
salvation.
At least three features of this construction reflect apologetic themes. Foremost is the
indication that testimony to the resurrection and responsibility for its proclamation is
transferred from the female followers to the male disciples. Second, the Gospel is a
universal message that is to be directed westward, i.e. in the direction of Rome. Third,
Peter is singularly identified as leader of the apostolic pack.
We may locate all of these themes in Christian apologetic writings. First, we have
already witnessed how Celsus spurned Christianity as a religion built on the tenuous
foundation of a deranged womans testimony, and how Origen replied by insisting that
Jesus had appeared to others, including Thomas and the men on the road to Emmaus
whom he identified as Simon and Cleopas.188 Second, the universal scope of the great
commission is repeated frequently among apologists. Origen, for example, employed
the concept of universality to explain why Christianity consisted of all nations and
races of persons.189 Third, the disciples are identified as those around Peter.
Recognizing here the primacy of Peter not only recalls his revered status in the early
church, a status shared among most apologists,190 but also stands against pagan rhetoric
187
Kurt Aland affords a positive appraisal for the originality of the shorter ending in his
article, Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums, in Neotestamentica et Semitica, Studies
in Honor of Matthew Black, ed. by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox (Edinburgh, 1969), 157180.
188
Cels. II.6163. In this section Origen also alludes to the Pauline tradition from 1
Corinthians 15:38 in which Jesus is reported to have appeared to Cephas, the twelve, to about
500 brothers at once, then to James, and then to the apostles, and then to Paul himself.
189
Cels. II.13.
190
Origen defended the reputation of Peter against Celsus by recalling the prophetic words
of John 21:1819 that Peter would die a martyr's death (Cels. II.45) and allegorized Peter as the
rock upon which Christ would build his church as a promise issued to all believers (Comm. Matt.
XII.1011). Though Tertullian remains more literal and personal in his understanding of the
power of the keys being conferred on Peter uniquely, he nevertheless reveres Peter as the one
by whom the church was reared (Pud. XXI). Clement of Alexandria refers to him as the blessed
193
directed specifically at Peter. Both Celsus and Porphyry are known to have ridiculed
him. If, as most scholars conclude, the so-called Shorter Ending is an editorial or
scribal embellishment of Marks Gospel, it should be noted that the literary masons
responsible for constructing this addition crafted their edifice out of apologetic brick.
THE LONGER ENDING
Vincent Taylors Longer Ending, sometimes identified as the Traditional

ending, established itself in many versions of the New Testament as a result of its
inclusion in the Textus Receptus. It, too, includes features that may rightly be
identified as apologetic in character. Scholars note that these twelve verses fall naturally
into four brief accounts: (1) the appearance to Mary Magdalene; (2) The appearance
to two disciples; ( 3) the appearance to and commissioning of the eleven; and (4) an
ascension narrative. Let us reflect upon each of these from the standpoint of Christian
apologetics.
We discussed earlier how pagan critics, especially Celsus, scorned Christians for
relying for evidence of the resurrection upon the testimony of a hysterical
(pa&roistrov) woman. Notice, though, that this embellishment accomplishes two
things in that regard. First, the narrative testifies to the sanity of Mary by reporting that
prior to her ever seeing the risen Christ he had driven seven demons out of her. As in
the Lukan text (8:2) which appears to bear a direct influence upon this verse, Mary is
being identified here as a person purged of those forces that would make her
hysterical. She is a sane, reliable witness.
Yet, and this is the second point, despite this affirmation, the male disciples refuse
to believe her. They do not believe her in the same way they would subsequently
dismiss the testimony of two other disciples walking in the country who relate to them
the same story. It seems evident that these verses constitute a compressed account of
the Lukan story of the Emmaus Road encounter.
Indeed, the eleven come to faith only when Jesus himself appears to them, a story
which extends the features of the Johannine Doubting Thomas story to all eleven
disciples.191 From an apologetic point of view, though, this serves as a sort of backhanded compliment. Faith in the resurrection is not the product of irrational men
falling for the fanciful tale of a mad woman. These men consistently yield to their own
reason until a resurrected Jesus rebukes them for their incredulity and stiff-necked
stubbornness. Compare this to the contention of Theophilus of Antioch that
historical writers, a category into which he placed himself, ought to have either been
eye-witnesses to the events they transmitted, or at least to have received accounts of
Peter and testifies to his hope in the resurrection by recalling his exhortation to his wife at her
death to remember the Lord (Strom. XI).
191
Notice, once again, that these stories of doubting Thomas and the two men on the road
to Emmaus are precisely those Origen uses in refuting Celsus assertion that Christianity is
founded on the testimony of a hysterical woman. See Cels. II.6163.
194
those events from credible eye-witnesses.192 Moreover, Theophilus declared that he

himself did not trust in the resurrection of the body until he understood it as the
fulfillment of the prophets.193
Immediately following this tongue-lashing, however, Jesus authorizes the eleven
to travel to the corners of the earth (ko/smov, a word used only twice in Mark) on a
mission to proclaim the gospel. Although Mark 16:1516 bears some resemblance to
Matthew 28:1820, certain Johannine features have located here, as well (cf. Jn 3:17 f.).
The themes of universality and baptism included in these verses, as noted above,
resonate with apologetic writers.
Also finding its way into this story is the characteristic Johannine reference to
signs (shmei=a). The embellisher of the Markan text declares:
And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out
demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they will
drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and
they will recover.
Speaking in tongues, of course, also recalls the Pentecost narrative of Acts 2:1 ff., and
reference to surviving the bite of a serpent and laying hands on the sick mirrors
activities of Paul on the island of Malta (Ac 28:310), as well as the power to tread
upon snakes and scorpions (Lk 10:19). Celsus ridiculed Christians for not making a
positive difference in the world. Tatian, in his own inimitable style of turning the other
cheek, took the offensive and inquired of the Greeks, What are your philosophers
doing of any significance or note?194 Origen drew a direct connection between Jesus
intending his followers to serve as ministers of his teaching and conveying upon them
miracle-working powers.195 The promise that bold signs and life-changing deeds will
accompany the missionary activity of the apostles serves as an important theme in
apologetic writings.
Finally, an abbreviated ascension narrative concludes the Longer Ending.
Examination of references to the ascension within the textual tradition proves
illuminating. Three times in writings attributed to the canonical evangelists is the
ascension reported: here in Mark 16:1920, as well as Luke 24:5052 and Acts 1:611.
Keeping in mind the high probability that Mark 16:1920 is derived from scribal
amendment, it is striking to recall that the key verse in Lukes account, Luke 24:51,
constitutes another of Horts Western Non-Interpolations. The shorter Western
reading in this instance consists of the omission of the phrase, kai\ a0nefe/reto ei0v
to\n ou0rano/n, and he was carried up into heaven. If, as Hort believed, * D it sys
report the authentic Lukan text, then the original Gospels would have contained no
192
Ad Auto. III.2.
Ad Auto. I.14.
194
Or. 25.1.
195
Cels. I.38.
193
195
account of the Ascension.196 Apart from two variant readings widely recognized as
inauthentic, therefore, the account of the ascension occurs only in Acts and nowhere
in the Gospels.197
Yet, despite the fact that the tradition treats the ascension almost as an
afterthought, Jesus transmission into heaven was adduced frequently to serve the
cause of the apologists. For example, where pagans, as exhibited in Porphyry,
contended that his disciples distorted and corrupted the message of Jesus, the early
apologist Aristides drew a direct connection between the ascension and the
commission to teach, as well as the content of the message. He stated specifically that
it was after his followers witnessed Jesus go up into heaven that they went forth into
the world teaching the majesty of Christ (th\n e0kei/nou megalwsu/nhn) and
proclaiming the doctrine of truth (to\ do/gma khru/ttwn th\v a0lhqei/hv).198
Again, then, the four major elements that constitute the Longer Ending (16:920)
of Marks Gospel all appear as important features in apologetic discourse. The earliest
certain evidence we have for this ending is an apologist, Tatian.199 Both internal and
external evidence, then, suggest the plausible conclusion that apologetic interests
played a role in the formulation and transmission of the Traditional Ending.
THE FREER LOGION
The so-called Freer logion also bears marks of apologetic considerations. Taylor
reads the Freer logion as an effort on the part of some scribe to, in his words, soften
the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14.200 Albeit so, details related to the
content of their defense should not be overlooked. The disciples based their appeal in
the face of Jesus rebuke on the notion that they had been dwelling under the
196
See Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 73.

See, however, John 6:62 and 20:17. These can be said to represent Johannine references
to Jesus ascending, although there is no direct narrative in the Fourth Gospel of the ascension
itself. Elsewhere in the New Testament, implicit references may be detected in Ephesians
4:810; Hebrews 4:14, 7:26, 8:1; 1 Peter 3:22; and 1 Timothy 3:16.
198
In addition to those apologists discussed here, the fragmentary On the Resurrection also
speaks of Jesus being taken up into heaven while the disciples beheld (see ANF, I.298). Three
large fragments of this treatise survive solely in the writings of St. John of Damascus, who
attributes them to Justin. Although the authenticity of this work is highly questionable (see
Quasten, Patrology, I.205), the content of the fragment demonstrates the polemic value that was
made of the ascension narrative and its witness by the disciples, and could point to a time much
earlier than John of Damascus (ca. mid-seventh to mid-eighth century C.E.). Even as early as the
second century, Irenaeus reported that the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples and in their sight
ascended (Ad Haer. XXXII.3).
199
Although C. S. C. Williams believed that Justin alluded to verse 20 and may have even
been responsible for authoring the longer ending. C. S. C. Williams, Alterations to the Text of the
Synoptic Gospels and Acts, 42.
200
V. Taylor, Mark, 615.
197
196
oppression of a Satanic dispensation, and were therefore unable to believe and act as
they would have otherwise willed. The Freer logion portrayed this Satanic era as an age
in which demonic powers actively refused to permit the truth and power of God to
prevail.
Compare this discussion of a sinful evil age with these apologetic writings. Tatian
spoke of an end time when the present age of demons would cease and Gods
judgment would prevail.201 So, too, did Origen, who declared that Jesus died in order
to destroy a great daemon, in the fact the ruler of daemons, who held in subjection
all the souls of men that have come to earth.202 Athenagoras also talked of demons
whose business it was to delude humanity and to overwhelm the soul with illusion and
deceit.203 Thus, the central theme of the Freer logion resonates with a frequency shared
by early Christian apologists.
CONCLUSION
Greco-Roman intellectuals derisively characterized the followers of Jesus, in sum,
as gullible poverty-stricken fools, immoral fanatics, and hysterical females. The
statements by Lucian of Samosata, Marcus Fronto, Apuleius, Celsus, and Porphyry
adduced above confirm this digest of pagan opinion. They also, particularly in the
cases of Celsus and the learned Porphyry, betray on the part of pagan opponents a
familiarity with certain parts of the Christian scripture. Apologists who struggled to
answer these charges frequently offered a contrary explanation of behaviors or
interpretation of certain biblical narratives. Aristides, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix and
Clement of Alexandria, among others, took great pains to claim the moral high ground
and portray Christians as sober, pious, and chaste. Apologists defended the
temperament of the disciples, asserted their boldness before non-believing adults, and
explained in terms of reverent humility the practices of prostration and referring to one
another as sisters and brothers, both of which were perceived by many ancients as
disgusting. Also, defenders of the faith addressed the perceived isolation of Christians
among the lower classes with the claim that adherents of the movement could be
found among all social and economic classes. Naturally, the burden of proof lay in
showing that some Christians were indeed people of means. With regard to the female
followers of Jesus, apologists were careful both to acknowledge the excellent moral
character of those women who confessed the faith, and to buttress Christian claims
rooted in female testimony by corroborating their stories with the support of male
witnesses.
The variant readings adduced and analyzed in this chapter have in terms of
content concerned persons who followed Jesus. In each instance I have sought to
demonstrate the plausibility if not strong likelihood that the scribes responsible for
201
Cf. Or. 6.1, 12.4, 14.2, 16.1, 26.2, and, especially, 29.2.
Cels. I.31; trans. H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 31.
203
Leg. 27.2.
202
197
these amended readings transposed their texts to the pitch of apologetic interests. The
voices of Origen, Tatian, and Athenagoras may be discerned echoing through these
scribal compositions. As if members of an orchestra before the concert, certain scribes
tuned their manuscripts to match the apologetic chords resonating in their minds. With
deliberation and yet subtlety, the scribes whose actions have been reported here
effectively fortified strengths and minimized weaknesses inherent in the texts where
they recognized the need and opportunity. Sometimes they replaced troublesome
words; other times they improved the depicted character of a disciple or introduced
an explanation for a socially offensive behavior. Most notably, perhaps, is how the
various embellishments to the finale of Marks Gospeleach of which (except for the
abrupt ending) is viewed by the consensus of textual scholars as a scribal
productall consist in large measure of content that follows the contours of
apologetic interests.
5
WHEN QUIRE MEETS EMPIRE:
SCRIBAL TRADITION AND THE ROMAN STATE
In the earliest years of the Christian movement, the Roman attitude toward
followers of Jesus appears to have been marked by casual indifference. Most of the
residents of the Empire were, in the words of T. D. Barnes, either unaware of or
uninterested in the Christians in their midst.1 Those hostilities that were directed at
believers in those initial years consisted mostly of fallout issuing from internecine
controversies that broke out among Christians and Jews. Only when such disturbances
disturbed the Roman peace did authorities intervene.2 Canonical Acts reports how
such tensions provoked the violent deaths of Stephen and James, but these were
1
T. D. Barnes, Pagan Perceptions of Christianity, in Ian Hazlett, ed., Early Christianity:
Origins and Evolution to AD 600 (London: SPCK, 1991), 232. Despite the fact that Christians
were present in Rome at least by the time of Claudius, Barnes points out, no clear reference to
them can be located in the extant pagan writers of the first century, including Martial, Juvenal,
Dio Chrysostom, and Plutarch.
2
W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict from the
Maccabees to Donatus (New York: New York University Press, 1967). Frends thick volume reads
like a seismographic chart displaying, in terms of the hostile attitudes and actions of the Roman
state toward nascent Christianity, numerous shifts in intensity and scope. At times Frends
narrative resembles a steady, smooth line, reflecting the simple fact that earliest Christianity
merited little consideration from Roman authorities or their enforcing legions. That is to say,
in the beginning, the number of Christian adherents was small and their impact on the empire
was inconsequential. Where they did come to the attention of the political or peacekeeping
establishment during the first two-thirds of the first century, such incidents usually resulted
from some sort of local commotion related to their often zealous evangelical efforts. What
might be classified as an empire-wide ennui, therefore, constitutes the most consistent attitude
of the Roman state toward Christianity prior to the Decian persecution, apart from occasional
sporadic and scattered pogroms and persecutions.
In Frends description, these periodic afflictionssuch as those appearing, for example,
at points during the reigns of Nero, Trajan, Domitian, Marcus Aurelius, and Maximin, to name
some major onescan be characterized as sharp spikes on the historical graph. Even most of
these, though, it should be emphasized, were local and therefore limited in scope. Similarly, the
famous martyrdom of the saints in Lyons and Vienne, for all its notoriety, remained
geographically confined. To continue to borrow the language of seismology, the Richter scale
would have failed to register peak numbers until the first empire-wide persecution under Decius
(249251 C.E.), and the later, so-called Great Persecution under Diocletian (303312).
199
200
deaths carried out by Jewish crowds and not Roman legions. Although the Annals of
Tacitus inform us that, as early as 64 C.E., Nero lay blame for the fire of Rome at the
Christians doorstep, the historian himself notes that the accusation was politically
motivated and unfounded, and all indications are that the prescribed retribution against
them was confined to Rome.3 Before the fire, the antagonism that was directed toward
Christians happened on a small scale, and appears to have been generated as the result
of local disturbances, led usually by Jews.
Roman writers seem to have considered Christianity a topic of interest only when
it became a perceived threat to Rome. For example, Roman historians gave serious
treatment to none of the failed messianic movements in Palestine during the first
century.4 Only later, the extant evidence shows, did the practice grow widespread
among Romans to target Christians as deserving capital sentence. How, when, and why
this escalation occurred has been the subject of a great deal of scholarly reflection and
dispute, especially since the middle of the twentieth century. This bewildering issue
remains in dispute, but is important enough to merit a brief excursus, following which
we shall pursue a search for the stances taken most frequently by Christian apologists
in relation to the Roman state.
EXCURSUS: WHY WERE EARLY CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED?
As indicated by his reply to Pliny, c. 111 C.E., Trajan affirmed the execution of
accused persons who remained adamant in their claim of faith, but he also insisted that
any accused person who denied the faith and who publicly demonstrated his denial by
honoring Roman deities should be released. Moreover, he forbad either unfounded
accusation or government-sponsored investigations.5 In addition to those under Nero
and Trajan, data support the dual contention that, on the one hand, Christians endured
periodic hardships under Domitian,6 Marcus Aurelius,7 and Septimus Severus,8 to name
3
Tacitus, Annals XV.44. See the critical edition of the Latin text in Karl Niperdey and
Georg Andresen, eds. P. Cornelius Tacitus: Annalen, Zweiter Band (Freiburg, Germany:
Weidmann, 1978), 263265; and the text and English translation in Tacitus, The Annals, Volume
V, (Translated by John Jackson; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937),
282285.
4
As so clearly summarized in the recent introduction by Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside
the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000):
701.
5
Pliny, Letters 97.
6
Although some recent scholarship has rejected the occurrence of persecution under
Emperor Domitian (8196 C.E.), Robin Lane Fox points out that phrases in 1 Clement 1.1
indicate that persecution within the city of Rome did indeed transpire during his reign. Idem,
Pagans and Christians (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 433. See also L. W. Barnard, Studies
in Church History and Patristics, 13942, in support of this contention by Lane Fox. Kirsopp Lake,
in discussing the date of 1 Clement, entertains the possibility of associating the persecutions
referred to in 1 Clement 1.1 with the reign of Domitian, probably around 96 C.E.; but he
WHEN QUIRE MEETS EMPIRE
201
a few; but, on the other, it was for the first time in the middle of the third century,
during the short-lived reign of Decius (249251), that an emperor ordered an empirewide pogrom against Christians.9
Thus, prior to the tolerance for them prescribed by the edict of Galerius in 311
and their subsequent elevation to favored status under Constantine, Christians were
generally treated by the Roman state with either widespread indifference or violent
contempt. On and off again during the first four centuries of the common era,
Christians suffered at the hands of Roman authorities. That this occurred is clear
enough; but the template for how, why, and to what extent it occurred remains
unsettled. The lacunae in our knowledge regarding this issue have prompted fierce and
long-standing discussions among members of the academy about the scope and
motives for Roman intervention in the Christian enterprise. The question is often
framed, Why were early Christians persecuted? A brief review of the classic debate
between A. N. Sherwin-White and G. E. M. de Ste. Croix serves as a point of smooth
entry into the white water currents of this discussion.10
cautions that we know very little about the alleged persecution in the time of Domitian, and
it would not be prudent to decide that the epistle cannot be another ten or fifteen years later.
Idem, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers (LCL 2 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1985), 5. For additional ancient source material on Domitian see Suetonius, De Vita
Caesarum, VIII and Eusebius, Hist eccl. III.1320.
7
Eusebius (Hist. eccl. IV.15.1) refers to disturbing persecutions associated with the joint
reign of Lucius Verus (161169) and Marcus Aurelius (161180). W. H. C. Frend (Persecution and
Martyrdom, 1989) indicates that over time the prescriptive practices directed by Trajan and
Hadrian that Christians were to be punished but not sought out for punishment began to be
discarded in favor of more active investigation. He cites the persecutions in Smyrna (1667) and
Lyons (177) as evidence in support of his contention. Frend goes on to point out, however, that
under Marcus Aurelius, recantation still earned the accused a pardon, unless allegations of
criminal behavior (flagitia) had also been charged.
8
Only briefly, however. Except for the years 2023, the reigns of Septimus Severus and his
son demonstrated tolerance toward Christians. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, 242.
9
R. Lane Fox describes the publication of Decius edict as part of his effort to construct
for himself a deliberate public image harking back to the piety and prosperity of the Antonine
dynasty. He notes that only a fragment of actual text of the edict has survived, and thus the
precise nature of its purpose remains disputed. Idem, Pagans and Christians, 452. W. H. C. Frend
(Persecution and Martyrdom, 300301) in general concurs with Lane Fox, although he emphasizes
even more the political motives behind the edict and its call for sacrifice, namely to unite
support behind him as a usurper to the imperial throne, and downplays the edict as being
aimed negatively against the Christians. Nevertheless, its application led to persecution.
10
Prior to 1952, motivation for Roman carnage against Christians was generally attributed
to one of three factors: (1) general law, the belief that there was enacted a widespread
legislation forbidding the practice of Christian religion; (2) coercitio, Mommsens theory that
Christians were punished at the discretion of local governors on the basis of their ordinary
power to enforce public order (imperium); and, (3) specific offenses, the belief that Christians
were prosecuted for specific offenses such as child-murder, incest, magic, illegal assembly, and
treasona charge generally based on a Christians refusal to worship the emperor.
202
In his 1952 article that rekindled interest in this question, Sherwin-White argued
that, prior to the empire-wide edicts issued by Decius, Romans persecuted early
Christians on account of their contumacia, i.e. their excessive obstinacy at refusing an
official request to perform a reasonable order. In support of his thesis, he cited as
primary evidence that Christians were executed only when they proved obstinate,
particularly in failing to pay homage to the Roman cult. Plinys correspondence from
Bithynia-Pontus, e.g., disclosed that neither for their name (nomen) nor past actions
(flagitia) were Christians executed if they merely carried out the command of the
governor to offer up incense. Also, with regard to the Scillitan martyrs, he noted,
reference was made to the proconsul affording Christians time to return to the Roman
tradition. Thus, for Sherwin-White, Christians were persecuted on the basis of
gubernatorial discretion not imperial edict, and they were persecuted, not so much for
their crimes or for merely bearing the name Christian per se, but for their obstinacy.11
Sherwin-Whites arguments failed to convince G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. In a 1961
paper read to the Joint Meeting of Hellenic and Roman Societies and the Classical
Association at Oxford and published as an article in 1963, Ste. Croix challenged several
features of Sherwin-Whites case. In particular, he clarified the point that Pliny did not
offer a test to those who professed to be Christians but only to those who claimed not
to be. The test, then, was not a means of pardon for professing Christians, but a test
of sincerity on the part of those who denied association with the movement. Equally
challenging was Ste. Croixs stern reminder that the question under investigation
involved the impulse behind the initial arrest of Christians, i.e., why they were brought
to trial in the first place. While it was possible, Ste. Croix conceded, that obstinacy in
the face of judicial review might provoke the temperamental wrath of a governor in
the heat of dispute, the concept of contumacia failed to explain why believers were
initially summoned before the provincial administrator.
What did account for their initial summons, at least in part, according to Ste.
Croix, was the monotheistic exclusivism of the Christians.12 Their singular devotion
to one god to the exclusion of all others was incomprehensible to the polytheistic
majority. Moreover, by a population rooted in the belief that harmony between
humans and their deities was brought about by the regular exercise of traditional cultic
practice, it was believed that Christian truancy from public religious rites alienated the
affections of the traditional gods and thus jeopardized the pax deorum. As Christians
For the classic exchange between Sherwin-White and Ste. Croix, see A. N. Sherwin-White, The
Early Persecutions and Roman Law Again, JTS, n. s. III,2 (October, 1952), 199213; G. E. M.
de Ste. Croix, Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? Past and Present, 26 (1963), 638;
A. N. Sherwin-White, Why Were Early Christians Persecuted?An Amendment, Past and
Present, 27 (1964), 2327; and G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Why Were Early Christians
PersecutedA Rejoinder, Past and Present, 27 (1964), 2833. All four of these articles appear
together in Everett Ferguson, ed., Church and State in the Early Church (Studies in Early
Christianity, Volume VII; New York and London: Garland, 1993), 159.
11
A. N. Sherwin-White, Early Persecutions and the Roman Law Again, 21011.
12
G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? 24.
203
openly vented their denigration of pagan gods as loathsome demons or publicly

declared their assertion that these deities did not exist at all, such brazen disregard of
their traditions provoked among many pagans simmering disdain if not boiling
hostility. Also, unlike their religious progenitors with whom they shared an emblematic
exclusivism, Christians did not enjoy the degree of tolerance pagans afforded Jews on
the basis of the antiquity of their religion and its practices. Christians, then, garnered
neither the respect attached to antiquity nor the public attitude of laissez faire generally
associated with mutual indifference. Instead, tensions mounted. In refusing altogether
to participate in the religious rites of their local communities, followers of Jesus
threatened to add injury to insult. As numerous sources from the mid-second century
to the fifth century demonstrate, the pagan populace feared that when the gods
inevitably chose to rain punishment down upon these irreverent Christians they might
get hurt from the fallout.13 Other factors, such as economic issues, may have played
a minor part in the growing tensions, but chiefly it was this fear of innocently suffering
from a divine retribution deserved by and directed at irreverent Christians that
inflamed the sensitivities of the pagan populace.
This served Ste. Croix as a satisfactory explanation for why the masses developed
hostility toward Christians, but there remained for him the question of the official
reaction of the Roman state. With the single and very different exception of the Jews,
he noted, Rome possessed no precedent for dealing with this maverick brand of
religious exclusivism. He also acknowledged that different members of the governing
establishment may have been driven or moved by different motivations. Finally,
though, for Ste. Croix, the attitude of the state in persecuting Christians stemmed from
the latters denigration of traditional religion. Two points prompted his conclusion.
One was his observation that official representatives of the state, unlike pagan
adversaries like Celsus and Porphyry, did not attack the positive aspects of the religion;
only its refusal to honor the pagan gods was confronted. Second was his recognition
that most sects of Gnostic Christians escaped persecution, apparently on the grounds
that their expression of the faith did not insist on being exclusive.14
Sherwin-Whites reply to Ste. Croix was immediate. While he affirmed Ste. Croixs
overall treatment of the question, and acknowledged that his thesis prevailed following
the reign of Marcus Aurelius, he charged that the authors criticism of his basic thesis
missed the mark due to a methodological flaw, namely that of working backward
historically. The belief that godlessness was at the core of the matter, he writes,
depends entirely upon the evidence of the later period....But for the earliest period of
Christian persecution we have the testimony of three highly placed Roman
13
Probably the most familiar of these sources is located in Tertullian, Ap. 40.12, where he
puts these words into the mouths of pagans who blame every misfortune upon Christians: If
the Tiber overflows or the Nile does not, if there occurs a drought or an earthquake, famine or
pestilence, at once the cry goes up, The Christians to the lion. See also Augustine, Civ. II.3
and Origen, Cels. III.15.
14
G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?, 289.
204
administrators, whom he names as Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius. In all three, he

continued, the only ground indicated for the proscription of the cult is its association
with crimes and immoralitiesflagitia, scelera, maleficia.15 Before addressing Ste. Croixs
question about why the masses disdained and the authorities arrested Christians in the
first place, Sherwin-White insisted, one needed to face a prior question, which he
phrased, When did the central government perceive that the extensiveness of the
Christian following required that their exclusive godlessness was in itself not to be
tolerated, apart from other associated offences?16 Plinys letter, Sherwin-White
declared, made clear that this did not occur before his time, i.e. 112 C.E. His contumacia
theory, he argued, was proposed to explain the transition among Romans from the
earliest indictments that centered on flagitia to charges related to godlessness that emerged
later.
Once again, though, Sherwin-Whites amendment failed to persuade Ste. Croix.
In a Rejoinder that appeared in the same issue as Sherwin-Whites Amendment,
Ste. Croix once again dismissed the contumacia theory on the basis of vocabulary
(obstinatio not contumacia occurred in the relevant source material) and for lack of any
firm evidence that Christians were ever executed because they were guilty of
disobedience.17 Moreover, Ste. Croix noted that in both Pliny and Tacitus there was
clear indication that Christians could be duly punished even in the absence of being
found guilty of any immediate crimes or abominations (flagitia) merely on the basis that
the name Christian itself implied inherent abominations. Ste. Croix distinguished this
behavior of the Roman state from its approach to other superstitions, such as the
Bacchanalia or the Isis cult. Roman action against these groups was always directed
toward specific offenses (flagitia), and neither cult was ever made altogether illegal.
This, he emphasized, was different from the Roman ban against professing to be a
Christian.18 For Ste. Croix, then, both prior to and after the response of Trajan,
Christian confession was enough to merit arrest and punishment; any reaction to
contumacia constituted an afterthought. Ste. Croix remained convinced that at the heart
of what he called the unique offense of Christianity was its atheism (a)qeo&thv).19 Its
failure to peacefully co-exist within a religiously pluralistic society constituted not only,
in the words of Tacitus, a detestable superstition (exitiabilis superstitio), but also a
treasonous threat.
For some time, then, Ste. Croixs thesis constituted the mainstream of discourse
on the subject until, more recently, T. D. Barnes attempted to cut a fresh channel into
15
A. N. Sherwin-White, Amendment, 23.

A. N. Sherwin-White, Amendment, 24.
17
G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Rejoinder, 2829.
18
G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Rejoinder,3233.
19
G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, Rejoinder,33.
16
205
this braided river of thought.20 Barnes approached the question by searching for any
evidence of Roman legislation against Christianity prior to Decius in 250 C.E. Both
Tertullian (Ap. 4.4) and Athenagoras (Leg. 7), Barnes pointed out, indicated that
Christianity was illegal, but failed to explain how it came to be so. Unfortunately, his
analytical trek through source references to emperorsamong them Tiberius, Nero,
Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Septimus
Severus, and Maximinand what he considered the most reliable of martyr accounts
produced little fruit. His sober but rather anticlimactic conclusion was that, until the
persecution of Decius, the legal position of Christians within the empire remained that
of Trajans prescription to Pliny.21
Finding no definitive answer in his research into imperial legislation led Barnes to
seek more decisive conclusions elsewhere, however, most immediately in clues located
in the canonical Acts of the Apostles (16:16 ff., 17:5 ff.). Thessalonian Jews, he noted,
charged Paul and Silas with illegal activity for proclaiming Jesus as their king, and at
Philippi, after Pauls effective exorcism rendered their slave-girl useless to them, her
owners brought Paul and Silas before the magistrate for disturbing our city and for
advocating customs which it is not lawful (ou0k e1cestin) for us Romans to accept or
practice (Ac 16:21). The resulting punishments before local officialsa moderate
flogging and a nights imprisonmentshowed him that local responses to Christian
missionary activity could result in the sort of disturbances that had to be enforced by
local peacekeepers. Moreover, Acts offers evidence of abuse on strictly religious
grounds. Because the communities were divided over their teachings and acts of
power, Paul and Barnabas were cast out of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra,
where in this last instance Paul was stoned and left for dead. At Athens and Ephesus,
also, religious tensions incited crowd reactions to Paul.
Barnes located in these stories the foreshadowing of a future and more severe
prejudice against Christianity as he recalled the proconsul of Africa, Vigellius Saturnus,
who in the year 180 truncated a Christians attempt to espouse his faith with the
assertion, I shall not listen if you speak evil of what is sacred to us. There was, in
addition, the juxtaposition discernible in Pliny of his celebration of the revival of
interest in pagan temples and cults with his concern for the residence of Christians in
his province. Even in the absence of evidence for clear definitive legislation that
supported his thesis, Barnes substantiated his opinion on what he saw as a common
thread that united virtually every layer of official Roman response to
Christianswhether it was that of a local magistrate, provincial governor, or the
Emperor himself. He concluded:
20
T. D. Barnes, Legislation Against the Christians, 3250. Reprinted in Everett Fergusen,

ed., Church and State in the Early Church (Studies in Early Christianity Series, Volume VII; New
York and London: Garland Publishing, 1993): 6078.
21
T. D. Barnes, Legislation, 48.
206

The relevance of these facts to the problem of the legal basis of the condemnation
of Christians ought to be clear. A provincial governor was predisposed to punish
those who attacked the established religions, and would do so without waiting for a
legal enactment by the Senate or the emperor. Mos maiorum was the most important
source of Roman law, and it was precisely mos maiorum in all its aspects that Christians
urged men to repudiate. The theory of national apostasy fails as an explanation of
the legal basis of the condemnation of Christians; but it comes close to the truth if
it is applied, not to the law, but to the attitudes of men. It is in the minds of men, not
in the demands of Roman law, that the roots of the persecution of the Christians in
the Roman Empire are to be sought.22
From this brief survey of the issues arising from the effort to characterize the
relationship of the Roman state and early Christianity it may be seen easily enough why
this riddle remains unsolved. Despite the sweeping research and probing analyses of
Sherwin-White, Ste. Croix, and Barnes, no categorical case has been constructed and
loose ends remain. Yet, it may be stated fairly that tying together this web of
investigation is the thematic thread rooted in the writings of Pliny. All three scholars
return to this provincial governors correspondence with Trajan as the underpinning
of their arguments, and each, in his own way, understands that there lies beneath
Plinys swift execution of Roman justice some unwritten but preconceived notion that
persons unwilling to deny their Christianity deserve to die. Capital punishment is
earned not for any crime they have committed but for the specific creed they continue
to confess; and not for what they have done but for what they have left undone.
Roman justice was at its foundation practical. Christians as they were perceived
may or may not have deserved to die, but they needed to be eliminated, because they
would not live and let live. Every convert to this novel superstition added to a
growing number of persons intolerant of the beliefs of the majority and of those
unwilling to adhere to the traditions that helped make the empire great and insure its
ongoing stability.
CHRISTIANS THROUGH THE EYES OF PAGAN DESPISERS
Whatever uncertainties remain about why they were persecuted, it is clear that by
the early second century, along with being despised, Christians were suspected and
feared. For example, the aforementioned correspondence between Pliny and Trajan
provides an early Roman record of government-inflicted punishment on adherents of
the faith.23 Here we are informed that Roman leadership early in the second century
22
T. D. Barnes, Legislation, 50.

For the relevant English text of Plinys letters see The Epistles of Pliny, Volume III
(Translated by William Melmouth and edited by Clifford H. Moore; Boston: Bibliophile Society,
1925), 166170, and S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity,106869. For commentary on
the Latin text of Epistles 96 and 97 see A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and
Social Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985): 691712.
23
207
understood Christians to be a menace to society, to the extent that the very confession
of the name Christian merited capital punishment.24 Also, the literary invention of
Minucius Felix , the pagan Caecilius, gave voice to a form of pagan criticism that
viewed Christians as a rabble of blasphemous conspirators, whose secret nocturnal
orgies provided settings for their immoral, anti-social behaviors.25 The Cynic
philosopher Crescens, known to posterity only through Justins reference to him as an
opponent of the Jesus movement, publicly declared Christians to be impious and
atheistic.26 These were labels that had political as well as religious implications.
Separation of church and state was a concept foreign to the ancient mind.
Thus, literary defenders and despisers of Christianity both recognized that there
were political implications associated with their religious convictions. Failure on the
part of Christians to revere Roman deities was believed to jeopardize the ongoing
stability and prosperity of the empire. Their truancy from pagan festivals, processions,
and games; their obsession with a future afterlife to the point of eschewing pleasure
in the present; their irreverent disregard for pagan gods and temples; and their refusal
to offer incense to the emperor connoted treason against Rome. Tacitus represented
this view in his Annals when he described how blithely Nero was able to transfer blame
for the torching of Rome to the Christians because they were widely viewed by the
masses as odio humani generis, the hatred of the human race.27 Even more to the point,
Caecilius (in Octavius) defined Christianity as a rabble of blasphemous conspirators who
practiced the adoration of an executed criminal.28
In order to propagate this specter that the Jesus movement constituted a menace
to society, pagan intellectuals liberally applied to Christ or his followers pejorative
labels such as criminal, charlatan, friend of sinners, magician, or revolutionary. Celsus
was particularly fond of invoking this theme of insurrection. He described certain
teachings of Jesus as rebellious utterances,29 and frequently labeled him a sorcerer, an
appellation that we noted previously was in terms of its content not merely pejorative
but criminal. At one point Celsus draws what was in his mind a dramatic contrast
between adherents of the [other] mystery religions and Christians. Celsus declares:
Those who summon people to the other mysteries make this preliminary
proclamation: Whosoever has pure hands and a wise tongue. And again, others say:
Whosoever is pure from all defilement, and whose soul knows nothing of evil, and
who has lived well and righteously. Such are the preliminary exhortations of those
who promise purification from sins. But let us hear what folk these Christians call.
Whosoever is a sinner, they say, whosoever is unwise, whosoever is a child, and, in
24
For an English translation of the relevant text of Plinys letters see S. Benko, Pagan
Criticism of Christianity,106869. See also the footnote immediately above.
25
Oct. VIII.
26
Justin Martyr, 2 Ap. See Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 1078.
27
Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, cited from S. Benko, Pagan Criticism of Christianity, 1063.
28
Oct. VIII.
29
Cels. VIII.2.
208

a word, whosoever is a wretch, the kingdom of God will receive him. Do you not say
that a sinner is he who is dishonest, a thief, a burglar, a poisoner, a sacrilegious
fellow, and a grave-robber? What others would a robber invite and call?30
In another particularly inflammatory passage in which he calls Christians to

perform their civic duty and serve the emperor, Celsus dared:
If everyone were to do the same as you, there would be nothing to prevent him
[meaning the emperor] from being abandoned, alone and deserted, while earthly
things would come into the power of the most lawless and savage barbarians....31
For Celsus, then, Christian behavior represented activity that if emulated would
threaten the stability of Rome and pose a danger to the emperor himself. Roman
civilization would fall into the hands of lawless barbarians, and the only kingdom that
would be leftthe one of Christians makingwould consist of unwise wretches,
misled children, and a host of social miscreants. Yet another pagan critic, recorded in
the Octavius of Minucius Felix, voiced that Christians do not understand their civic
duty.32 Porphyry, too, particularly in his Philosophy from Oracles, called attention to the
implicit dangers in a movement that turned citizens away from traditional piety and
urged exclusive commitment to Jesus. Curiously, in this work, it was not with Christ
that Porphyry found fault; indeed, Porphyrys perception was that the gods themselves
honored Jesus. It was with his followers, whom the Neo-Platonist believed had
corrupted the Nazarenes teachings, blasphemously declaring him to be a god.33 It was
they who were leading people astray, religiously and politically.
CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS AND THE ROMAN STATE
Recognizing the stakes inherent in the treasonous and criminal accusations of
their opponents, defenders of the faith in an effort to stave off police actions against
believers frequently appealed directly to imperial justice. Thus, many of the preserved
apologies were addressed to emperors, and, though bold in their arguments, were
crafted with a deferential respect for Roman authority.
Though a venerated figure of the second century and a prolific writer, only
fragments of the works of Melito, bishop of Sardis, have survived. From Eusebius, we
know that around the year 170 C.E. Melito addressed to Marcus Aurelius his defense
of the Christian faith. Of our extant sources, Melito was the first to champion belief
30
Cels. III.59.
Cels. VIII.68.
32
Minucius Felix, Oct., 12.
33
See G. Wolff, ed. Porphyrii de Philosophia Ex Oraculis Haurienda (Hildeshiem: Georg Olms,
1962; Original edition 1856): 18081; and the discussions in J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre.
(Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964; Original edition 1913): 1922; and Robert L. Wilken, The
Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984): esp. 14856.
31
209
in the symbiotic relationship of the Christian religion and the Roman state. In his
defense addressed to Marcus Aurelius, he portrayed the chronological coincidence of
Augustus and Jesus as a good omen for the empire, noting that since that time Rome
had suffered no mishap but only flourished.34 Also, for all of Melitos well-known
polemical passion, he dutifully prostrated himself before Caesar. To the emperor about
the brutal treatment of Christians, he submissively fawned, If it is your command that
this is done, let it count as rightly happening.35
The unknown writer of the Epistle to Diognetus embarked on a slightly different
course, drawing an analogy between the relationship of the soul to the body and that
of Christians to the world. Although they resided in this world, he explained, it was
merely as sojourners; Christians innately belonged to another sphere of existence.
Indeed, it was because of their alien nature that they were so blatantly misunderstood
and so condemned. Still, even when reviled, they blessed. Despite being condemned
as evildoers, theirs was a record of doing good. And as dutiful servants in this alien
existence, the writer asserted, Christians were committed to take full part as citizens.36
Respect for the imperial office may also be witnessed in the writings of
Theophilus of Antioch. Although he asserted unequivocally that God alone was to be
worshiped, he added in no uncertain terms that the emperor deserved honor and
should be wished well, obeyed, and prayed for; indeed, to do so was to perform the
will of God.37 Of course, this attitude toward Rome had been expressed early on by
Paul in his letter to the believers in the capital city (Rom 13:17), and echoed with
enthusiasm in the general epistle designated as 1 Peter (2:1117). Theophilus, though,
made sure this attitude was known to Roman principalities.
Athenagoras, devoting most of his apology to refuting charges of immorality
directed against Christians, closed his defense with a plea for imperial approval, which,
he insisted, was well deserved. He argued:
Who ought more justly to receive what they request than men like ourselves, who
pray for your reign that the succession to the kingdom may proceed from father to
son, as is most just, and that your reign may grow and increase as all men become
subject to you? This is also to our advantage, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable
life and at the same time may willingly do all that is commanded.38
Christian apologists recognized their vulnerability to the charge of treason,

particularly in light of the potential misunderstanding of how Christians intended the
term, kingdom (basilei/a). In his First Apology, Justin labored to be lucid in regard
34
See the fragment of Melito preserved in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.26.78.

Melito, Fragment 1.6, recorded in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.26.511.
36
Diog. 5.
37
Autol. I.10. The verbs used by the apologist for how to honor (ti/ma) the emperor here
are eu/now=n, u9potasso/menov (cf. Rom 13:1,5), and eu0xo/menov. Cf. Grant, Theophilus, OECT,
1417.
38
Athenagoras Leg. 37.23. For the translation see W. R. Schoedel, Athenagoras: Legatio, 87.
35
210
to this matter. When you hear we look for a kingdom, you suppose (without inquiry)
it is a human one. No, it is a kingdom with God.39
Origen was similarly concerned. In reply to Celsus charge that Christians were
mad and rushed forward to arouse the wrath of an emperor or governor that brings
upon us blows and tortures and even death,40 he pleaded sanity and devotion, citing
in reply Romans 13:12, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is
no power except by Gods permission; the powers that be are ordained of God; so that
those who resist the power resist the ordinance of God.41 At Origens editorial
discretion, the closing paragraphs of Contra Celsum feature Celsus exhorting Christians
to accept public office...if it is necessary to do this for the sake of the preservation of
the laws and piety.42 The crux of this appeal clearly indicates Celsus impassioned
desire for the preservation of his nation and his religion.
Thus, where many pagans viewed Christianity as a threat to the social order,
traditional religion, and the security of the Empire, apologetic voices attempted to
mollify their concerns. They explained that Christians met to worship not plot. Yes,
they admitted, Christians speak of and seek a kingdom, but only one beyond the
sphere of this world. Meanwhile, Christians live as loyal citizens by praying on behalf
of the emperor. Those who decried Christianity as a movement initiated by an
executed rebel would be reminded that Pilate was coerced into acting as he did; in his
own mind, Jesus was innocent. Indeed, it was the enemies of Christianity that were in
fact hypocritical and evil.
VARIANT READINGS
In what follows I collect a number of variant readings that in my judgment reflect
these apologetic themes. I have grouped them around four major themes: Kingdom
(basilei/a) Language in Luke, The Exoneration of Pilate, Secrecy, and Scribal
Characterization of Opponents as Evil, Hypocritical and Violent. I intend to solicit
from these readings support for my claim that scribes sometimes changed their texts
due to apologetic motivation.
KINGDOM (basilei/a) LANGUAGE IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
The Christian gospel declared with bold anticipation that the advent of a divine
kingdom would soon take place. Christians disobeyed Roman law when they met in
39
Ap. I.11.
H. Chadwick hints that this line may have been directed toward Christians who
deliberately courted martyrdom and reports that the name martyr was withheld from those who
initiated their own demise. He references Mart. Pol. I.4 and Clement of Alexandria, Strom.
IV.17.1.
41
Cels. VIII.65.
42
Cels. VIII.75.
40
211
secret and when they refused to offer sacrifice to the emperor, and they posed a threat
to the welfare of the realm when they neglected their civic responsibility of
participating as full citizens in service to the state and participation in pagan religious
festivals.
A careful inspection of the scribal activity associated with the verses in the third
Gospel in which the term basilei/a occurs has uncovered an interesting pattern:
every otherwise unqualified occurrence of the word Kingdom (basilei/a) in Lukes
original text has been modified by some scribe in the process of transcription. The
specific variants to which I refer appear in the following texts: Luke 9:27; 11:2; 12:31;
19:38; 22:29, 30; and 23:42.
Luke 9:27 is situated in the pericope featuring Jesus call to his followers to take
up their crosses and follow him. He warns them against being ashamed of the Son of
Man and urges them to commitment. In fall, the verse reads:
le/gw de\ u9mi=n a0lhqw=v, ei0si/n tinev tw=n au0tou= e9sthko&twn oi4 ou0 mh\
geu/swntai qana&tou e3wv a2n i1dwsin th\n basilei/an tou= qeou= [v. l. to\n ui9o\n
tou= a0nqrw&pou e0rxo/menon e0n th|= do/ch| au0tou=].
But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they
see the kingdom of God [v. l. replace with the Son of man coming in his glory].
This is the reading of virtually all witnesses to this verse except for the frequently
exceptional Codex Bezae (D). The copyist of this Western manuscript replaced the
phrase, th\n basilei/an tou= qeou=, with a reference to the Son of Man coming in his
glory, to\n ui9o\n tou= a0nqrw&pou e0rxo/menon e0n th|= do/ch| au0tou=.
Since mechanical error does not readily explain the genesis of this variant reading,
it appears to be the product of intentional scribal modification. Its similarity to its
counterpart in Matthew might at first glance prompt one to account for the reading as
a product of harmonization, but careful appraisal shows that this explanation proves
insufficient. The Matthean parallel to this verse, Matthew 16:28, reads:
a)mh\n le/gw u9mi=n o3ti ei0si/n tinev tw=n w{de e9stw/twn oi3tinev ou0 mh\
geu/swntai qana&tou e3wv a2n i1dwsin to\n ui9o\n tou= a)nqrw&pou e0rxo/menon e0n
th|= basilei/a| au0tou=.
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they
see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Comparison of the Matthean reading with that of Codex Bezae reveals that the
harmonization is not exact. Indeed, the divergence between the two consists precisely
of kingdom language. The differences between the readings are slight until, where
Matthew reads coming in his kingdom (e0n th|= basilei/a| au0tou=), the parallel as
attested in Codex D reads coming in his glory (e0n do/ch| au0tou=). Therefore, although
the Lucan reading in Bezae shows signs of assimilation to its Q-counterpart, there
remains another facet of this modification for which we must account. The effect of
212
the variant reading is to replace the term basilei/ana word that is at its core
political and would have undoubtedly been understood by outsiders as suchwith
language that is inherently theological and rooted in Jewish and Christian
eschatological tradition, namely the coming of the Son of man. Admittedly, pagan
readers may have judged the altered phrase as alien or even superstitious, perhaps
accounting for why Luke may have omitted it originally in his treatment of the Q
passage; but in Bezaes version of Luke, anotherand perhaps more
consequentialeffect, was produced: any inference that Jesus and his movement
sought to supplant Roman rule would have been avoided. This clarification
corresponds to the apologetic theme repeated with frequency in Tertullian, Origen,
Melito of Sardis, and to a lesser extent in Athenagoras and Theophilus.43
Appearing in the context of the Lucan version of the Lords Prayer, Luke 11:2
cradles the second petition, e0lqe/tw h9 basilei/a sou, May your kingdom come.
While it is well known that a large number of manuscripts show the affects of
assimilating the Lucan Lords Prayer to the Matthean version, no imposed agreement
was in this case required. Lukes words here are exactly those of Matthew 6:10. Certain
scribes, though, were not content to leave well enough alone. Something about this
verse provoked them to alter it. The copyist of Codex Bezae affixed to the beginning
of this plea, e0f 0 h9ma=v, so that the invocation reads, Upon us may your kingdom
come (my emphasis). The addition by D of the prepositional phrase is not dramatic,
but it may have been introduced to clarify the apolitical intention of the petitioner that
he himself (and not the Roman empire) was to serve as ground zero for the advent of
Gods kingdom. Verbally, it also drew attention to the parallelism of this plea to the
following one, one that Bezae assimilated into his text from the Matthean parallel, as
your will is done in heaven, let it be so on earth (i.e., e0pi\ th=v gh=v = e0f 0 h9ma=v).
A more striking variation of this verse, however, displaces Kingdom language
altogether and replaces it with the vocabulary of Spirit. The variant text reads,
e0lqe/tw to\ pneu=ma& sou to\ a3gion e0f 0 h9ma=v kai\ kaqarisa&tw h9ma=v, May your
Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us. Though this reading is preserved by only
two minuscules (the eleventh century Caesarean ms 700 and ms 162, dated 1153 C.E.),
a few patristic citations suggest that the reading was familiar to readers of Luke in the
fourth and fifth centuries.44 The earliest account of this reading resides in Tertullian,
and it may or may not point to Marcions text of Luke.
The sparse nature of the external evidence is of little concern here. Quite clearly
this remnant in Tertullian does not convey the original reading; no such case is being
broached. What is of concern here is an attempt to recognize and, where possible,
analyze the nature of various influences on the transmission of the New Testament
text. We are trying to learn more about the history of the text.
43
For sample references see Tertullian, Ap. 29.17; Origen, Cels. VIII.65; Melito of Sardis
in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. IV.26.78; Athenagoras, Leg. 37; and Theophilus, Autol. I.11.
44
For a lucid and fuller treatment of this variant see B. Metzgers discussion in Textual
Commentary, 15455. See also J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 9034.
213
Bruce Metzger and Joseph Fitzmyer conclude that this variant reading issues from
a liturgical adaptation of the Lords Prayer used at baptisms or during the rite of laying
on of hands. Moreover, Metzger points out that reference to this text in Tertullian
emanated from his Montanist period when matters of the Spirit would have been of
prime importance for him.
Although these ideas are reasonable, juxtaposed alongside them with tantamount
plausibility is the premise that apologetic interests influenced the formation of this
variant. While the insertion of Spirit language into this verse may well indeed
accommodate liturgical usage, the modification also fits the contours of apologetic
concerns. The change removes from the central prayer of the early church the phrase
that would have sounded most politically threatening to outsiders. Also, the location
of this reading in the corpus of the first great Latin apologist should not be overlooked,
especially since a leitmotif in the apologetic works of Tertullian is that Christians
represent no threat to the state. The fact that in his work resides the earliest trace of
this reading locates the likely Sitz im Leben for the derivation of this reading in or
around Carthage. By the time of Tertullian, Carthage was next to Rome the greatest
city in the western empire. It is precisely in this sort of high profile Roman urban
center in which distress over the mis-perception of Christians as a political threat
would have been a major concern for early believers. While none of these data
contradict the liturgical relevance of the textual variant, they do offer a complementary
and equally feasible explanation for the origin of the reading. Scribes concerned with
the political implications of the kingdom language in this verse may have for apologetic
reasons supplanted it with the vocabulary of the Spirit.
An analogous transmutation occurs in Luke 12:31. By a substitution of genitives
deft as the sleight of hand in an urban shell game, the vague reference into his
kingdom was changed to kingdom of God. This subtle shift expunged any hint that
Jesus might have been seeking to supplant the Roman throne and ratified the
Johannine theme that the kingdom Jesus preached was not of this world (Jn 18:36).
Yet another instance occurs within Lukes account of the Palm Sunday entrance
into Jerusalem. Luke 19:38 recounts the welcoming shouts of the crowd as,
eu0loghme/nov o9 e0rxo/menov o9 basileu\v e0n o0no/mati kuri/ou, Blessed is the King who
comes in the name of the Lord, or as the majority of manuscripts read by merely omitting
an article, Blessed be he who comes as king in the name of the Lord. Bruce Metzger
acknowledges that a constellation of variants surrounds this verse, but that the former
reading best explains the others. One of the other variants, however, relates to our
discussion. A few witnesses (W 1216 it vgmss bomss) omit o9 basileu\v altogether, so
that the text reads, Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord. Although it could
be argued that homoeoarcton explains the omission, the significant change in meaning
wrought by the omission should be considered. This modification not only brings the
verse into harmony with its Synoptic counterparts (Mt 21:9; Mk 11:10) but also
removes from the verse the term which would undoubtedly have proven the most
problematic for defenders of the faith. Much more than accident seems involved here.
Still another reading to be considered under this rubric is that of Luke 22:29. In
this pericope Jesus responds to the dispute among the disciples over which of them
214
is the greatest. Jesus quells the argument by distinguishing his followers from pagan
benefactors who do good in order to gain personal prestige and by injecting the
paradoxical query, Who is greater? The one who serves or the one who sits at table?
Yet I am here among you as one who serves (Lk 22:27). Thus, Jesus drives home the
point that greatness in the kingdom is related to service. In this context he then says,
And I confer on you a kingship (basilei/an) such as my Father has conferred on me,
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom (basilei/a) and sit upon thrones
as the judges of the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk 22:2930). Some copyists, though, as
attested by A Q 579 and syh, inserted into this verse the word, covenant (diaqh/khn),
so that the altered text read, I make a covenant with you just as my father conferred on
me a kingship or I leave you a last will and testament.... Ms 579 even replaces the
second occurrence of kingdom language (basilei/an) with diaqh/khn. Yet again, then,
these changes involve the insertion or substitution of religious language for language
that could be misconstrued as (or antagonistically manipulated into) the idiom of
political threat, thus reflecting the concerns of early Christian apologists.
The final instance of this pattern of substitution in Luke occurs in the plea of the
so-called penitent thief on the cross that he be remembered by Jesus (Lk 23:42).
Gaining certainty as to which reading constitutes the original is difficult. The
stalwarts Vaticanus and P75 along with L and Latin witnesses bear witness to the
reading, ...remember me when you come into your kingdom, ei0v th\n basilei/an sou.
This is the reading selected by the UBS4 Committee, but they grade their choice only
a {C}.45 This low rating is due in part to the notion that the change in preposition
from ei0v into e0n has the appearance of a scribal grammatical improvement, but the
committee opted for it on the grounds of intrinsic probability, preferring it as more
congruent with Lukes theology (cf. 24:26). The great majority of witnesses ( A C2
R W Y 0124 0135 f 1.13 and the Majority tradition) however, render the preposition e0n,
which alters the meaning slightly to, ...when you come in/with your kingdom. Some
commentators have argued for this as the reading that issued from the pen of Luke.46
Which of these came first, however, is of no great consequence for this study, though
the latter sounds slightly more like an apocalyptic return to the Roman earth while the
former intimates an ascension into heavenly bliss. Therefore, if the judgment of the
committee was reversed, the scribal shift from e0n to ei0v would more consistently
mirror the more common apologetic depiction of eschatology, i.e. God receiving his
own into divine paradise rather than imposing on the Greco-Roman world an earthly
hegemony.
More telling for our purposes, though, is the variant reading located in Codex
Bezae. Here once again we observe the transcriptional pattern of replacing Kingdom
language with theological idiom. The text of Codex D reads, e0n th|= h9me/ra| th=v
e0leu/sew&v sou, in the day of your coming. Clearly the secondary reading, Bezaes
rendering of this pericope completely omits the term basilei/a. The witness of this
45

See J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel of Luke, 1510 for references to those who make such a case.
46
215
codex exposes once again a deliberate effort on the part of a scribe to discard the
political vernacular in favor of theological phraseology.
In each of these variants a similar dynamic appears to have been at work in
shaping the textual transmission. Examination of the textual tradition indicates a
proclivity on the part of some specific scribes for modifying ambiguous Kingdom
language. Analysis of this constellation of variants suggests that these scribes were
concerned that basilei/a might have been interpreted politically rather than
theologically, and altered their exemplars to circumvent this potentially threatening
misunderstanding.
Recognition of this pattern, though, in some ways raises more questions than it
answers. While it illuminates the influence of apologetic interests on the transmission
of the New Testament text, it also begs the question of why this particular
phenomenon seems to occur most frequently in Luke.47 The pattern, if it can rightly
be called that, is not associated with any single text-type or maverick manuscript. Nor
was it applied systematically or exhaustively. Copyists made no sweeping effort to
expunge the term basilei/a from the pages of their transcribed canon. In all four
gospels the term continued to appear imbued with theological substance. What does
seem to have occurred, though, is that, occasionally, use of the word basilei/a (or its
corollaries) struck a particular scribe as precariously political in meaning in such a way
that it prompted him to shave the stubbly substance of political treason from the face
of the text by omitting the word altogether or introducing into the reading a
theological surrogate.
47
Granted, sensitivity to the political echoes of Gospel readings can be discerned in the
transmissional manipulations of scribes other than those of Luke. For example, scribes appear
to desire that Jesus be viewed as a sober peacemaker, not a threatening figure of violence.
Consider, for example, the lineage of Matthew 10:34, in which the author reports the
apocalyptic announcement of Jesus, I have come to bring strife and a sword, but where the scribe
responsible for the Curetonian Syriac substituted, I have come to bring division of mind. This
account transforms Jesus from a figure whose arrival breeds contention to one whose presence
induces a deeper, more precise way of thinking. See also Origens commentary on Matthew
27:1617, in which he argues that no one who is a sinner is called Jesus; and Matthew 27:24,
where the movement in the tradition appears to be from the blood of Jesus being innocent
(a)qw|=on) to righteous (di/kaion) and blameless (a)nai/tion). See also Luke 23:2, 5, where
the charges added to Jesus reflect those directed against early Christians by pagan despisers;
when Jesus rises, therefore, it serves to vindicate him and exonerate him of those charges, and
by way of association, exonerate the early Christians, as well. See also Mark 4:9/Matt 9:123,
where the insertion of into repentance expresses sacred purpose of Jesus gathering of
persons. This same concern surfaces in Origens treatment of this activity (Cels. III.6061). It
is not for sharing secret wisdom that we call thief, burglar, etc but for healing!
216
THE EXONERATION OF PILATE
Although in all four canonical Gospels he sits squarely at the center of the passion
narrative in his judgment seat at the Praetorium, it is ironic that Pilate was even in
Judea at all. He owed his assignment there, in large measure, to the bungled regency
of the ethnarch Archelaus. He, alone among the three sons of Herod I who inherited
the rights to administer a portion of their fathers kingdom, proved unequal to the task.
Though the details of his deficiency remain incomplete, they somehow proved
damning,48 so that by the year 6 C.E., Caesar Augustus summoned Archelaus to Rome,
subsequently banished him to Gaul, and reestablished his territory, which included
Judea, as a Roman gubernatorial province.
As the fifth of those prefects assigned to oversee this province, Pilate had hardly
been issued a plum. Bond labels it, in the parlance of Strabo, a third-class imperial
province.49 His was not a large province, but the mercurial zeal of its citizenry belied
its small size. Thus, yet another irony is to be observed: despite its inconsequential
character as a desolate outpost on the far-flung fringes of the empire, the man who
administered Judea for a decade in the early part of the first century (ca. 2637 C.E.)
is remembered in many lands some two thousand years later as a household word. Still
another is that, though his official records have long been lost, and the only real
archaeological record of his earthly sojourn consists of a few coins and an inscription
unearthed in Caesarea, his prescribed involvement in the execution of a Nazarene
prophet has indelibly etched his name in the chronicles of history. So too, however,
is the reverse true. This odd coupling of Jewish peasant and Roman equestrian,
Galilean and Governor, Jesus and Pilate is almost universally recognized among
scholars as the single, most recoverable and incontrovertible historical fact of the life
of Christ: he was crucified under Pilate. This factum, though, found its way into the
formulas of the Christian credo, ergo constituting perhaps the oddest irony of all: the
man who bore the historical responsibility for sending Jesus to his death was later
portrayed variously in Christian evangelical, apologetic and apocryphal literature as
48
The sources convey mixed messages. Josephus portrays Archelaus as a brutal, selfindulgent ruler (J.W. 2.1113; Ant. 17.21318, 17.33941), while Dio Cassius intimates that the
seed of his fall lay in plots against him (55.27.6). For a brief discussion of the sources followed
by her own view that political intrigue did play a hand in Archelaus fate, see Helen K. Bond,
Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (SNTS Monograph Series 100; Richard Bauckham, gen.
ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998): 14. Raymond Brown, on the other hand,
describes Archelaus as proving such a bad ruler that a delegation of Jews and Samaritans
requested he be deposed. Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 Vols. (ABRL; New York:
Doubleday, 1994): 334, 336, 340, 342, 677, 678, 763.
49
H. Bond, Pontius Pilate, 4. Her reference is to the classification in Strabo, Geog. 17.3.25.
She notes that the imperial provinces were generally characterized by more turbulence than the
more subdued senatorial provinces. A heavier deployment of troops was generally required to
keep the peace.
217
increasingly exonerated of responsibility for the death of Jesus, as a person who

ultimately became a believer, and even as one who became a martyr for the faith.
Early in the evolution of the gospel tradition, for example, there gained in
momentum an effort to shift responsibility for the death of Jesus away from Pilate and
the Romans and onto the Jewish leadership and/or people. This has long been
recognized and frequently discussed. Whatever impulse originally lay behind this
migration of responsibility, the shift had the practical effect of serving apologetic
interests. Plainly, the exoneration of Pilate implied the innocence of Jesus. That is to
say, looking at matters from a Roman perspective, the perception that a Roman
governor wielding his best judgment determined that the crucifixion of Jesus was
necessary for the stability of his territory would have confirmed the impression that
he was a political threat. On the other hand, reports indicating that the governor acted
reluctantly and under duress in ordering his troopsor permitting othersto execute
the Nazarene would have similarly suggested that Jesus was the innocent victim of a
lynch mob. Certainly, when one traces Pilates role in the developing canonical Passion
Narrative from Mark through Matthew, Luke, and John, even the casual observer
cannot fail to notice a pattern of shifting blame away from Pilate and onto others.
Matthew and Luke transfer accountability to the select party of Jewish leaders, while
the tradition of the Fourth Gospel assigns blame more broadly to the the Jews (oi9
/Ioudai=oi).
Some scholars, it should be noted, interpret this shift of responsibility as indicative
of an early anti-Judaic bias among Christians.50 Others, like Raymond Brown, argue
that Pilate is not exculpated in any of the canonical accounts.51 Mark, he writes,
portrays Pilate as one who, although he recognizes the clear innocence of Jesus, yields
quickly to the cries to surrender him. Brown interprets the Matthean interpolations of
Pilate washing his hands and his wifes dream as further evidence of the governors
spineless character. Despite believing in the Nazarenes innocence, he still hands him
over to be crucified. Nor is the author of Luke striving to exonerate Pilate. Brown
declares, The primary motive in this portrayal is not the exculpation of the Romans;
rather we learn from the examples of Pilate, Herod, the wrongdoer on the cross, and
the centurion that anyone (Jew or Gentile) who judges in an unprejudiced manner
could immediately see that Jesus was a just man.52 Likewise in the Fourth Gospel,
Pilates declaration that he finds no fault in Jesus fails to exonerate him; rather, the
author uses Pilate to typify the person who in failing to decide for truth decides against
it. Browns read of the evangelists, therefore, is that they not only resist any impulse
50
See, e.g., Eldon J. Epp, Theological Tendency, for a description of this bias. But cf. D.
Moody Smith, John (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999):
3438, for his discussion of the treatment of Jews in the Fourth Gospel, where he concludes,
The obvious hostility toward Judaism in John is then not a function of their remoteness from
one another but of a one-time close relationship gone sour.
51
R. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 387391.
52
R. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 390.
218
to exculpate him, but also consistently portray Pontius Pilate as craven and unwilling
to stand up for truth and justice.
For Helen K. Bond, the canvas of the canonical Gospels does not contain a
monolithic portrayal of Pilate. Located within each text is a visage of the governor
drawn within the frame of each evangelists design and purpose. For her, Marks Pilate
appears, not as weak and vacillating, but as a shrewd politician. With imperial interests
securely in mind, he manipulates the Jewish crowd in order to defuse a potentially
explosive situation. Although the evangelist places primary responsibility for the death
of Jesus on the Jewish leadership, Pilate is not released from his role in this fatal,
fateful chain of events.53 Nor is he exonerated in Matthew. Though seen here as less
calculating than in Mark, Bond assesses the Matthean governor as sometimes gaunt
and colorless, sometimes indifferent. Once again, he gains no pardon from the
evangelist because of his willingness to allow Jewish authorities to have their way with
an innocent man.54 In Bonds appraisal of the Lucan Pilate, she highlights the
evangelists major apologetic purpose to employ Pilate as the official witness to the
innocence of Jesus. With C. H. Talbert, she views the prefect of Luke more as an
advocate...than as a judge.55 Still, she determines that Lukes portrait of Roman
administration remains unflattering. She points, first, to Pilates attempt to pass off the
burden of judgment onto Herod, and, when that fails, to succumb to the will of the
Jewish tribunal. In the end, she writes, Jewish mob pressure triumphed over
Roman justice. Finally, she likens the Johannine Pilate to the one found in Mark, a
nimble bureaucrat willing to forfeit the life of an innocent man in order to patronize
local leaders and to placate a restive crowd.56 Thus, she concludes, ...there is no
evidence of a linear progression throughout the gospels in which Pilate becomes
progressively friendlier towards Christianity.57
To the extent that Brown and Bond may be right in their unequivocal judgments
that Pilate is never exonerated in any of the Gospel accounts, they appear to be
denouncing a Pilate of straw. Much of their appraisal relies on the fact that, no
matter how or to what extent an evangelist may have air brushed his image of Pilate,
his action of handing over Jesus to be executed remained the scar that could not be
removed. His choice to give in to manipulated lies and mob violence rather than to
stand firm in the face of truth and innocence conveyed to him an intractable guilt from
which he could not be exculpated.
This, in my judgment, begs the question. Jesus was crucified, after all, under
Pontius Pilate. Whether Pilate acted directly or indirectly, or played an active or passive
role in the event, is open for discussion; but whether he ultimately acted in a way that
53
H. Bond, Pontius Pilate, 117.

55
H. Bond, Pontius Pilate, 159. See also C. H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A New Commentary for
Preachers. (London: SPCK, 1982): 217.
56
57
54
219
resulted in the execution of Jesus is not subject to dispute. No evangelist could have
told the story any other way. According to the prophets, their scriptural traditions
affirmed, Jesus had to be crucified, and that required the authorization of a Roman
authority.58 Therefore, the issue at the core of what is generally referred to as the
exoneration of Pilate (and the Romans), in my judgment, does not consist of what
political and judgmental action Pilate ultimately did or did not take with respect to
Jesus, but the characterization of him in terms of his personal feelings and convictions
as he made that decision. That a politician would subjugate his personal convictions
for reasons of expediency, albeit sadly, should not surprise anyone today; nor, would
it necessarily have proved striking to members of a Greco-Roman audience.
What remains to be seen, then, is whether there can be traced in the Gospels a
pattern from the earliest Gospel, Mark, to and through the later Gospels that exhibits
an evolution or modification in how Pilate was portrayed to have felt about turning
Jesus over to be crucified. If exoneration is understood in these terms, the evidence
seems conclusive. According to Matthew, the Roman governorhaving been
cautioned by his wife as a result of her own disturbing dream to have nothing to do
with Jesus, whom she refers to as that righteous man (o9 di/kaiov e0kei=nov)
symbolically washes his hands of the whole matter. To this gesture the people
respond with the shout, His blood be on us and our children (Mt 27:19, 2425). In
the Lukan account, three times Pilate declares Jesus innocent (Lk 23:4, 13, 22), and the
centurion overseeing the execution is in the end moved to exclaim, Certainly this man
was innocent (di/kaiov) (Lk 23:47). This pattern continues in the Fourth Gospel,
where, after a philosophical discussion with Jesus about truth, Pilate straightforwardly
declares, I find no crime in him (Jn 18:38). Later, he even exhibits awe in the face
of the announcement that Jesus declared himself the Son of God (Jn 19:78). Thus,
there does exist within the editorial features and narrative interpolations of the Gospel
tradition a linear pattern that serves, not only to shift accountability for the death of
Jesus from Pilate to the Jews, but also to underscore Pilates own view that Jesus was
innocent.
Thus, however disputable the motif of the exoneration of Pilate is among the
scholars of the Gospels, there can be little doubt that effort was made among the
apologists and non-canonical writers to grant Pilate some measure of amnesty for
allowing the execution of Jesus. Paul Winter informs this claim. He insists that making
sense of the sharp distinctions between the ruthless Pilate of Philo, Josephus, and the
sources for Luke 13:12 and the perceptive politician of the canonical Gospels requires
58
For discussion of whether or not the Sanhedrin had the power to execute capital
sentences see, R. Brown, Death of the Messiah, 363372, 747748. Browns evaluation of the
evidence is that, in fact, the Sanhedrin did possess some restricted rights to put to death
offenders of certain religious laws and perhaps adulterers. He continues, though, that with
regards to Jesus, because of the political nature of the crimes for which he was being accused,
it is likely that the Sanhedrin would have been exceeding its authority to slay him.
220
examination of the transformation in the character of Pilate through early Christian

traditions.
We should not confine ourselves to the portrayal of the procurators character and
actions in the canonical Gospels if we wish to elucidate the motives behind that
pattern; we have also to consider the role assigned to Pilate in post-evangelical
Christian traditions, for the motives which were operative in the minds of the
evangelists continued to influence the communal activities of Christian believers for
a long time after the Gospels had been written. It is only by considering later records
in conjunction with the Gospels that we can arrive at a clear appreciation of the
factors that governed the continually changing representation of Pilates personality.59
On the basis of his study of the Gospels, patristic sources, Christian apologists and
non-canonical literature, Winter claims, the more Christians are persecuted by the
Roman state, the more generous becomes the depiction of Pontius Pilate as a witness
to Jesus innocence. Clues from early Christian sourcese.g., the Gospel of Peter,
Melito, Tertullian, and the Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemusindicate the marked rise
in Pilates stock, a trend that continued noticeably until the time of Eusebius, when the
consequences of Constantines victory at the Milvian Bridge and the ensuing Edict of
Milan rendered inconsequential the testimony of the Roman governor on behalf of
Jesus. Until then, however, the strategy of manipulating Pilates character and actions
for purposes of serving the Christian cause was frequently employed. Christian writers
often adapted his role in the story of Jesus trial and death, no longer presenting him
as the unjust judge of Christ, but as an advocate and a witness for the defense. The
Roman governors testimony was reworked in such a way as to imply that the
profession of Christian beliefs and attendance at Christian cultic practices was nonsubversive....60 Thus it was that efforts on the part of Christian writers to exonerate
Pilate served apologetic interests on behalf of Christians.
Let us review some of those writers. Although he objectively reported that Jesus
was judged by Pilate (o9 u9po\ Pila&tou a0nakriqei/v), Melito of Sardis was vituperative
in his insistence that Jews rather than Romans were responsibleand thus
accountablefor his death. He wrote, The king of Israel has been put to death by the
right hand of an Israelite (a0nh|r
/ htai u9po\ decia=v /Israhli/tidov).61 Similarly, he
dislodged even from the shoulders of Nero and Domitian culpability for their capital
assault against Christians, arguing that it was not by force of imperial will but in
59
Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1961): 55.
P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, 61.
61
Melito of Sardis, Fragment 15 and Peri Pascha 96. See Stuart George Hall, ed. and trans.
On Pascha and Fragments (OECT, ed. Henry Chadwick; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979): 8284
and 5051.
60
221
yielding to the persuasion of malicious persons that they participated in pogroms

against believers.62
Justin Martyr twice summoned the purported writings of Pilate to corroborate the
facts of his case, i.e., to demonstrate that the death and deeds of Jesus occurred as they
did in fulfillment of ancient Hebrew prophecy. The specific content of these passages
merits attention. In Ap. I.35, Justin compares certain details of the crucifixion, such as
piercing the hands and feet of Jesus and casting lots for his clothing, to those oracles
located in Isaiah 9:6, 65:2, 58:2 and Psalms 22:16; analogy of Jesus acts of healing to
those predicted in Isaiah 35:6 is the subject of Ap. I.48, which reads:
And it was predicted that our Christ should heal all diseases and raise the dead. Hear
what was said; these are the words: At his coming the lame shall leap as a hart, and
the tongue of the one who stammers shall speak clearly. The blind shall see, and
lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise and walk about. And that he did
those things you can learn from the Acts of Pilate.63
Writing in the middle of the first century, Justin either felt compelled to, or felt that
he could as ready currency, adduce Pilate as an authoritative source to support his
defense of Christianity. Moreover, he summoned him for support precisely at points
in Justins argument where tensions with the Roman state would have been most
evident: (1) in relation to miraculous events, which could easily be recast in the harsh
vernacular of magic;64 and (2) in relation to the crucifixion, a Roman form of
punishment reserved for only the most heinous of criminals. Justin slyly invoked the
witness of a Roman authority to secure the most vulnerable planks of his platform.
62
Melito of Sardis, Fragment 1.9, in S. G. Hall, ed. On Pascha and Fragments, 645. See also
the discussion of R. M. Grant in which he situates the apology of Melito in the context of the
attempted coup of Avidius Cassius against Marcus Aurelius and Commodus that occurred
shortly after 176 C.E. His suggestion is that Melito as well as several other apologists are aware
that fallout from this revolt had led to the persecution of Christians, particularly in Gaul, and
craft their works accordingly. Robert M. Grant, Five Apologists and Marcus Aurelius, VC 42
(1988): 117.
63
Justin, Ap. I.48. Cf. ANF, Vol. 1, 179.
64
As further evidence for this point, it is interesting to observe that located in the
apocryphal Acts of Pilate is a very similar collection of healing miracles that are adduced by the
Jews to accuse Jesus before Pilate. Moreover, they specifically attach to them the label of
sorcery. The text reads:
But this man with evil deeds has healed on the Sabbath the lame, the bent, the
withered, the blind, the paralytic, and the possessed. Pilate asked them, With what
evil deeds? They answered him, He is a sorcerer, and by Beelzebub the prince of
devils he casts out evil spirits, and all are subject to him. Pilate said to them, This
is not to cast out demons by an unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepius.
See Acts Pil./Gos. Nic. 1, in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. I.
(Trans. by R. McLean Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963): 451.
222
Tertullian pressed this strategy even further. Yes, he wrote in his Apology, and
we shall prove that even your own gods are effective witnesses for Christ. It is a great
matter if, to give you faith in Christians, I can bring forward the authority of the very
beings on account of whom you refuse them credit.65 Thus, this Latin apologist
sought to turn the tables on the enemies of the faith by intentionally adducing Roman
deities and authorities as bearing positive testimony on behalf of Christians and their
beliefs. Trajan, as Tertullian told it, in essence repealed any sort of imperial acrimony
directed against Christians when he forbid Pliny to hunt them down, and Marcus
Aurelius he portrayed as the protector of Christians.66 It was in this light, then, that the
author acknowledged that it was indeed Pontius Pilate who tried, crucified, and secured
with an armed guard the burial chamber of Jesus, but, he insisted that Pilates
complicity resulted from the violent outcries of the leading Jewish citizens. Moreover,
he implied, there was more to the story.
All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own
convictions, he sent word of him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time
Tiberius. Yes, and the Caesars too would have believed on Christ, if either the
Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been
Caesars.67
Thus Tertullian unabashedly declared that Pilate held not only sympathy for Christ, but
faith in him.
Numerous legends surfaced among Christian storytellers that similarly conveyed
this central theme. One example, the Christian Acts of Pilate, is paired in some
manuscripts with an independent treatise about the Descent of Christ into Hell, and
the two together are known as The Gospel of Nicodemus.68 Regarding the date of the
work, some scholars locate in a reference from Justin (Ap. I. 35, 48; see above) reason
for establishing an early date for the work, perhaps early in the second century; but
others suggest that Justin had in mind official records from Pilates tenure. Still other
65
Tertullian, Ap. 21.

Tertullian, Ap. 5.
67
Tertullian, Ap. 21.
68
For the translated text of The Gospel of Nicodemus and other apocryphal literature related
to Pilate, see F. Scheidweiler, The Gospel of Nicodemus: Acts of Pilate And Christs Descent
Into Hell, in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, I.444484 (all citations refer
to this volume); and J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993):
164225. Elliott dates the current recension of the document no earlier than the fifth century,
and he benignly expresses for the motivation of the work a creative engagement of the natural
curiosity that, he believes, must have emerged among Christians about Pilate. But if P. Winter
is correct in his assertion that Christian interest in Pilate waned in the post-Constantinian era,
Elliott seems mistaken on both fronts. For one, the clearly positive spin the author puts on
Pilate reflects the concerns of the pre-Constantinian period, and therefore suggests an earlier
date (at least for the Grundschrift), and, secondly, much of the content of the work mirrors the
apologetic themes discussed herein.
66
223
scholars argue that the Christian Acts of Pilate may have been inscribed to counter a
pagan version that circulated during the reign of Emperor Maximin.69 It is equally
likely, however, that the pagan version was composed to rebut the Christian narrative.
Scheidweiler argues persuasively on the basis of some exact wording shared between
Epiphanius, writing around 375 C.E. (Haer. 50.1) and this work that at least the
Grundschrift of the Acts of Pilate was certainly in existence by the late fourth century.70
Thus, a fourth century date is likely, though some of the traditions included in this
work may, as suggested by Justin, be much older.
At points a piece of highly lavish fiction, this apocryphal Gospel relates an
inventive and purposeful account of the trial, death, and resurrection of Christ. Of
particular relevance for this study is the authors treatment of Pilate, or more
accurately, how Pilate in this narrative treats Jesus. For example, when the Jewish
leaders implore Pilate to interrogate Jesus, he replies, How can I, a governor, examine
a king? (I.2) He orders that Jesus be brought before him with gentleness, and when
Jesus finally enters the room the imperial images on the standards bow in homage to
him (I.5). Against those who testify that Jesus was born of fornication Pilate believes
those who insist that he was not. When his accusers charge him as a sorcerer and a
would-be king, the governor dismisses all the Jews except the twelve who defended the
legitimacy of his birth. They respond to the governors inquiries that the Jews wish to
kill Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath. Pilate wonders, For a good work do they
wish to kill him? They answered, Yes. (II.5). The Nicodemus narrative expands the
dialogue between Jesus and Pilate at several points, most notably adding an exchange
surrounding the question, What is truth? Strikingly, this Gospel embellishes the
pronouncement of Matthews Pilate, I am innocent of the blood of this man (Mt
27:24) in exactly the same way, as we shall see below, the variant tradition does; thus,
it reads, I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man (IV.1). These examples
suffice to indicate that, in the Acts of Pilate, the prefect is presented as a reasonable
judge vainly disputing with an unyielding mob determined to do away with Jesus.
Moreover, his disposition toward Jesus is reported as one of gentleness and mutual
respect, and his own personal appraisal of the accused is evident and unequivocal:
Jesus is a righteous man. Evidence of this apologetic dynamic is also discernible in
the textual tradition. At several points in the various canonical Passion Narratives,
most notably that of Matthew, variant readings serve to dilute tensions between Pilate
and other Roman authorities, on the one hand, and Jesus and his followers, on the
other. Throughout the Matthean Passion Narrative, for example, there can be observed
a subtle but consistent pattern of exaggerating the reported difference of opinion
existing between Pilate and the crowd about what fate is owed Jesus of Nazareth. This
subtle scribal activity serves to erode what remnants remain in Matthew of the
culpability for the death of Jesus that was attached to Pilate by the evangelist Mark.
69
As described in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. IX.5. Cf. LCL, II.3389.

Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 447.
70
224
In the context of Pilate responding to the crowd after they have selected Barabbas
for release, the original text of Matthew 27:22 reads, Pilate said to them, What then
shall I do (poih/sw) to Jesus the one called Christ? Pilate here speaks in the singular
first person, thus denoting his individual authorityand thus culpabilityfor that
which is about to transpire. Witnesses of the Western text (D, it), however,
substitute for the verb the plural first person, so that the text reads, Pilate said to
them, What then shall we do (poih/swmen) to Jesus the one called Christ? Use of the
plural form in this verse effectively draws the will of the crowd into the process of
decision making. Thus, by scribal decree, no longer is Pilate as sole authority about to
do something to Jesus; the throng has been drawn into the act of determining his fate.
When, therefore, Pilate orders a basin to wash his hands of the entire affair, culpability
is lifted from his shoulders and left solely on those of the gathered mass. With this,
Pilate is subtracted from the equation, and the calculus of crucifixion becomes the
exclusive function of willful Jewish leaders and a willing Jewish crowd. Thus, the
scribal editorialization of the Passion Narrative portrays the death of Jesus not as a
Roman execution but as a public lynching, and is carried out not as much by soldiers
under orders as by a crowd characterized by disorder.
Another instance of transcriptional activity amplifying the contrary attitudes of
Pilate and the homicidal horde results from the insertion of dative pronouns and a
subject in Matthew 27:2223. Thus, the reading of verse 22 is embellished from
everyone said, Let him be crucified to everyone said to him (au0tw|=), Let him be
crucified. Verse 23 is similarly altered from But he (i.e., Pilate) said, What evil has
he done? to But he said to them (au0toi=v), What evil has he done? Some
manuscripts further accentuate the distinction in parties by replacing the subject
pronoun with the governor (o9 h9gemw&n). This conspicuous introduction of a subject
and indirect objects effectsor at the very least draws attention toa polarization of
Pilate and the crowd. In turn, heightening the opposition between Pilate and the
multitude suggestively reduces the enmity between Jesus and Pilate, and therefore, by
implication, Christians and Rome.
This pattern continues to be reflected in the manuscript tradition of Matthew
27:24. The text of this verse as recorded in N-A27 can be translated as follows:
But Pilate, seeing that he could accomplish nothing and that moreover a riot was
brewing, had water brought and washed his hands before the crowd (o1xlou [v. l.
substitute la&ou]) as he said, I am innocent of the blood of this man (tou/tou [v. l.
substitute tou= dikai/ou tou/tou]). You see to it yourselves.
Alterations by copyists of the words in italics serve to distance Pilate even further from
the determined rabble. First, the most compelling of the emendations to 27:24 is to be
observed in the dramatic stroke of the transcriberattested by L W f 1.13 33 Maj lat
syp.h samss mae bowho seized the opportunity to place into the mouth of Matthews
Pilate a declaration of the innocence of Jesus. Merely by embellishing the original
demonstrative pronoun tou/tou with the substantive tou= dikai/ou tou/tou, the
adjusted reading placed on the lips of the Matthean Pilate an unambiguous
225
pronouncement of the uprightness of Jesus. Whether one sees this scribal gesture as
one of harmonization to the Lukan proclamations of innocence on the part of Pilate
(three times) and the centurion (once) or as the copyists own creative impulse, that the
resulting reading serves apologetic interests is undeniable.
Secondly, the hand of the copyist preserved in Codex Koridethi (Q) changed the
word designating the crowd from o1xlou to laou= (people). The possible
significance of this modification rests in the observation, most thoroughly outlined in
the work of Eldon Epp, that lao/v was sometimes used by Christian writers as the
Greek rendering of the Hebrew , used almost as a technical term for the Jews.71
If this usage may be applied here, the modification emphasizes the ethnic makeup of
the crowd, thereby distinguishing in yet another way the Roman Pilate from the Jewish
people who insist on Jesus crucifixion.
Finally, the exoneration of Pilate is punctuated in the boldest way possible in the
language of the Western tradition of Matthew 27:26. Recognizing the force of this
transcriptional episode requires a brief comparison with Mark. Where Mark in 15:13,
15 reports that the crowd in response to Pilates inquiry concerning the fate of Jesus
shouted Crucify him! (stau/rwson au0to/n), Matthew in 27:23 revises it to read,
Let him be crucified! (staurwqh/tw). Although some commentators have viewed
this revision as an effort on the part of Matthew to exculpate Pilate of and burden the
multitude with responsibility for Jesus death, Albright and Mann report difficulty
seeing how the passive verb brings about such a reading.72 Such cause for hesitation
was eliminated altogether, however, in the stroke of the scribe recorded in certain
Western witnesses (D, Q, pc, it) who modified Matt 27:26 from i3na staurwqh|=, in
order that he might be crucified, to i3na staurw&swsin au0to/n, in order that they might
crucify him. The willful quill of this copyist not only transposed the mood of a verb but
transferred accountability for the death of Jesus. For the scribe, Jesus tortured demise
issued not from the orders of a Roman governor but at the insistence of a disorderly
crowd; his was not an execution at the hands of Roman soldiers but a lynching by a
riotous mob.
The evidence amassed here seems to indicate that some transmitters of the
Matthean Passion Narrative, with meticulous attention to detail, modified their
exemplars to the support of the apologetic themes of the recognized innocence of
Jesus by Pilate and the governors unwillingness to be a party to his execution. Already
adduced as evidence for rooting this theme in the apologetic corpus have been the
works of Melito, Justin, and Tertullian. Moreover, we saw clear evidence of Pilates
exoneration in the apocryphal tradition and the Ethiopic and Coptic lists of saints.
Transferring culpability for the death of Jesus to Jewish rather than Roman
authorities may be appear to some the strict result of an anti-Judaic bias, but this
appears to me a narrow view. Apologists fashioned accounts that recast and accented
in new ways the Gospel narratives toward the end of making them palatable to, and,
71
Eldon J. Epp, Theological Tendency in Codex Bezae, 769.

W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew. 345.
72
226
whenever theologically possible, compatible with Roman ways. The ambition of their
literary labors was to blaze trails in religious discourse toward the end of safeguarding
Christians from persecution and delivering the Gospel from extinction. Making Jewish
leaders or even the people scapegoats for the execution of Jesus did not, per se, aid
the Christian cause. Apologists sought urgently to remove the onus of blame from
Rome; sadly and unfairly, Jerusalem was conscripted as the new custodian. History
after Constantine would, in time, associate heinous consequences with that action.
Meanwhile, transferring blame for Jesus execution was not as much about inculpating
Jews as much as it was distancing Pilate and Rome from willing participation in the
verdict and execution of Jesus. In subtle but potent ways, scribes worked at removing
hints that Pilate was an accomplice in the crucifixion of the Christ. Moreover, they
inserted elements that transformed Pilate from the judge of Jesus to his advocate, from
one who executed an innocent to one who exclaimed his innocence. Finally, by
underscoring the opposition of the Jewish and Roman forensic decisions directed
toward Jesus, as well as the ethnic breach that lay between Pilate and the people,
these transcribers dramatized that the operative philosophical breach that drove this
verdict existed, not between Romans and Christians, but between Romans and the
Jewish opponents of Christ.
SECRECY
The custom of Christians to gather regularly in private assemblies exposed them

to the risk of inculcating suspicion among outsiders. Pagan writers recognized this
vulnerability and heightened public apprehensions with their uninhibited speculations.
Phrased in a way to raise eyebrows, it was repeated widely that Christians met in
secret. Celsus provocatively designated Christians as a secret doctrine (kru/fion to\
do/gma).73 As was acknowledged by Fronto above, innocent or not, nocturnal
assemblies presented the appearance of impropriety. Referring to rumors about them
worshiping the head of an ass or venerating the private parts (Latin, genitalia) of their
high priest he admits, This [story] may be false, but such suspicions naturally attach
to their secret and nocturnal rites.74 In other words, whether or not Christians actually
do the things gossip relates, they deserve the slander because they make themselves
vulnerable to it by meeting in secret at night. This practice also reflected behavior
commonly associated with magic. Ancient magical rites were usually performed at
night in quiet seclusion.75
That Christians met and met privately could not, and usually was not, denied by
apologists. Nor did it necessarily need to be. Those affiliated with certain mystery cults
met privately and engaged in undisclosed rituals. Baptism and the Eucharist were
reserved for the initiated, again, in much the same way that certain practices among
73
Cels. I.7. Cf. the translations by H. Chadwick, 1011, and M. Borret, 9295.
Oct. IX.4, LCL 3367.
75
S. Benko, Pagan Rome, 1256.
74
227
mysteries were restricted. Admission into the community served as only the beginning
stages of the catechumenate; adherents came to more complete knowledge of the
doctrines over time. Bearing witness to this is Hippolytus (ca. 170236), who in the
third century document The Apostolic Traditions wrote:
And we have delivered to you briefly these things concerning Baptism and Oblation
because you have already been instructed concerning the resurrection of the flesh and
the rest according to the Scriptures. But if there is any other matter which ought to
be told, let the bishop impart it secretly to those who are communicated. (My
emphasis)76
Therefore, it was not unique or peculiar that Christians met privately so much as
this fact was manipulated by antagonists to cultivate mistrust and apprehension among
the masses. For this reason, then, the commonplace charge that Christians were a
secret society required a swift reply. In rebutting Celsus, for example, Origen
acknowledged that certain doctrines lay beyond the grasp of outsiders, but in this fact
compared Christianity favorably with respected philosophies.77 Moreover, Origen
insisted that the basic message of the faithincluding virgin birth, crucifixion,
resurrection, and final judgmenthad become familiar to almost the whole world. In
view of this, Origen summarized, it is quite absurd to say that the doctrine is secret.78
Attention to the matter of secrecy, then, is rightly listed among themes of
apologetic interest. Thus, it is incumbent upon this study here to examine the textual
tradition of the New Testament Gospels with an eye toward locating any scribal
alterations that might have been prompted by this concern. A small number surface
as possibilities. Evidence of scribal alteration intersects texts in which the language or
theme of secrecy occurs in the following texts: Mark 1:44, Mark 5:33, and John 11:28.
Admittedly, in none of these variant readings can it be said that apologetic motives
appear as the conspicuous cause, but attention to the subtleties in some of these
altered verses leaves open the possibility that apologetic interests may well underlie
these transcriptional changes.
Let us turn first to a minor variant that occurs in Marks account of the healing
of the leper. In the Majority text, the strongest of the Caesarean witnesses and
Vaticanus, among others, Mark 1:44 reads, o3ra mhdeni\ mhde\n ei1ph|v a)lla\ u3page...
(See that you say nothing to anyone, but go...). V. Taylor argues convincingly on the
basis of intrinsic probabilities that this is the original text. The asyndetic construction
is characteristic of Marks style, as is the motif of secrecy (Messianic Secret).79 In
76
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 23:1314. Gregory Dix, ed. The Treastise on the Apostolic
Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome (Second Edition revised by Henry Chadwick; London: SPCK,
1968), 4243.
77
In this sense borrowing, perhaps, from the tradition associated with Galen.
78
Cels. I.7. See the translations by H. Chadwick, 1011, and M. Borret, 9295.
79
V. Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark (Second Edition; New York: St. Martins Press,
1966): 189.
228
contrast to this rendering, and joined by both Matthew and Luke, another assortment
of manuscripts discards the characteristic double negative, omitting the word mhde/n.
Thus, the revised text says, See that you speak to no one, but go.... The change is
subtle, to be sure, and can reasonably be explained on the basis of homoeoarcton,
mhdeni//mhde/n; but that there is a change in meaning wrought by the change should
not be overlooked. Expunged with the pronoun is the strong appearance that Jesus
was concerned with concealing his work of healing, a behavior with which pagan
critics would have recognized as argue bore strong resemblance to that of a magician.
The scribal modification potentially avoids this pitfall. The omission of the second
pronoun shifts the emphasis of the command from secrecy to immediacy. See that
you speak to noone, but go... presses the straightforward nature of Jesus words. It
suggests, Do not let anyone detain you or impede your way. Go directly there, or,
in a slightly more vernacular expression, Dont tarry talking to anybody. Get out of
here and go where I told you. Now!
Another textual variant relevant to this discussion of secrecy occurs in Mark 5:33.
The context for the reading is the story of the woman with the issue of blood who
secures healing for herself by worming her way through a pressing crowd and touching
the hem of Jesus garment. Her plan to slink away, however, backfires when Jesus halts
abruptly and inquires, Who touched me? Reluctantly, the woman approaches him,
trembling with fear (fobhqei=sa kai\ tre/mousa). At this point in the story, several
sources include an explanation for her frightened state.80 They propose that she was
afraid dio\ pepoih/kei la&qra|, because she had acted in secret. Most commentators
completely gloss over this variant reading.81 V. Taylor acknowledges it, but finds this
to be a speculative and unnecessary emendation insofar as it attempts to explain the
underlying reasons for the womans frightened reaction. Such an explanation is
unnecessary, becausein Taylors judgmentthe author of Mark has provided
sufficient explanation for the womans trembling, namely, that it is the result of her
amazing healing and Jesus penetrating glance.82
If the scribes interests lay only in explaining the womans reaction, Taylors
verdict that the reading is speculative and unnecessary could probably stand. Is such
an explanation, however, the scribes only concern? Could it be, that where this scribe
appears out of step, he might be marching to a different cadence?
Let us consider this line of reasoning by revisiting some of the matters discussed
in the previous chapter about how the socially-structured paradigm of
male:public/female:private affected the perceptions of Christian women. Among
others, the compelling discussions of Margaret MacDonald and Karen Jo Torjesen
demonstrate how, for first-century Romans, the private sphere of the home was the
80
Among them D (Q) 28 50 124 348 565 (700) 1071 a ff i r1 geo arm. Compare N-A27, 104
and V. Taylor, Mark, 292.
81
Among them Mann, Marcus, Gould, C. H. Turner, and Wellhausen.
82
Taylor, Mark, 292.
229
only socially-acceptable arena in which women, generally, were to exercise influence

and be noticed. Almost exclusively, the public sphere belonged to men.
Based upon this view, it seems reasonable to entertain the notion that outsiders
may have perceived the behavior on the part of the woman who was healed as an act
of social indiscretion. Up to this point in the narrative, nothing in the story has
suggested that she has acted with restraint. The story makes clear that she acts out of
desperation: she has suffered from a flow of blood twelve years, a malady not only
physically draining but rendering her ceremonially unclean. Marks story also indicates
that she acts with premeditation: having heard reports about him, she determines that
if she touches his garment she can be made well. She even says so out loud.83 A pagan
could have easily detected in that assertion features of contagious magic, on the one
hand, and, on the other, verification that she was, like most women were commonly
believed to be, openly vulnerable to superstition. Moreover, she acts aggressively, if
surreptitiously; she sneaks up from behind and touches (h3yato) his garment. Now,
although in the synoptic Gospels, a#ptomai is most often used in association with the
healing touch of Jesus (Mt 8:3, 15; 9:20, 21, 29; 14:36; 17:7; 20:34; Mk 1:41; 3:10; 5:27,
28, 30, 31; 6:56; 7:33; 8:22; 10:13; Lk 5:13; 6:19; 7:14, 39; 8:44, 45, 46, 47; 18:15; 22:51),
it is not used so exclusively in the New Testament or in patristic sources. The word
conveys the act of touching in a variety of ways, including embracing, being affected,
and even partaking of the sacraments.84 When in John 20:17, for example, Jesus,
because he has not yet ascended, directs Mary to refrain from touching him, the
implication is that she yearns to embrace him with joy, not merely to gently brush the
hem of his garment. Finally, the womansuddenly healed from her hemorrhage
ends up singled out by Jesus and falling at his feet. We have already seen in the
previous chapter how unseemly Celsus found this gesture of prostration. Add to that
her complete lack of decorum at gaining the attention of a previously occupied crowd.
As the original text tells the story, then, or, better said, as a Roman might have
perceived the Markan account, this woman, in the act of securing healing from Jesus,
acted in breech of Roman etiquette. In her leap of faith she committed a faux pas.
Before continuing, I want to anticipate the concern of readers who may deem this
reasoning adrift. Compare the Markan account with that of the evangelist most often
associated with apologetic concerns and a noble treatment of women, Luke
(8:42b48). Notice that the original text of the third Gospel spares any mention of
her spending her livelihood on the futile efforts of physicians,85 eliminates any report
of her talking until after Jesus singles her out (and even then Luke grants her no direct
83
Mark reads, For she said (e1legen), If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well.
There is nothing here about thinking to herself or speaking to herself. Though the impression
of self-reflection can be inferred, it is not enforced by the words alone.
84
See G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 222. See also Jn 20:17, I Cor 7:1, II Cor
6:17, Col 2:21; and I Jn 5:18.
85
If we read as the original text that witnessed by P75 B (D) 0279 sys sa and Origen,
against the Majority text, * (C) A L W Q C (Y) f 1.13 33 (1424) (lat syc.p.h bo).
230
voice), and omits any reference to her perceiving that her blood stopped (Luke simply
informs the reader that it did). Jesus, in Luke, does not ask, Who touched me?, but
declares to the crowd that someone did, explaining openly, For I perceived that
power has gone forth from me. Luke explains that the woman comes forth only when
she realizes that she was no longer hidden. Yes, she does tremble and fall down before
Jesus (so Celsus would still be upset about her prostration), but she immediately
declares in the presence of the people why she touched him and how she had been
immediately healed. In Luke, then, she secretly approaches, is inauspiciously
discovered, and only then humbly confesses why she did what she did. She ends her
nervous outpouring with the report that she is healed, thereby vindicating her action
and putting the attention back on Jesus, who offers her a benediction. Lukes reading,
then, effectivelyand, I presume, quite deliberatelyexcises and mollifies many of
the elements of the Markan account that pagans could have found coarse, insolent, and
disturbing. The actions of the woman with the hemorrhage are softened, her voice is
muted, and she is made humble. All of these would have made the story more
palatable to listeners from a male-dominated Roman audience.
Quite similarly, I wish to argue, so would the textual variants located in this verse.
Reviewing the variant in Mark 5:33 in light of the foregoing discussion, it may be seen
that the scribe(s) who inserted dio\ pepoih/kei la&qra| similarly softened the actions
of the woman as she was portrayed in the Markan account. The mere report that she
intended to do what she did discreetly (la&qra|) alters the details of the story. Her
gestures may now be more rightly perceived as purloined movements. Her strain to
touch his garment can more likely be interpreted as an act of pious humility than of
occult contagion. All because she intended to act privately, she comes across as
submissive and, in the anthropological rhetoric employed by M. MacDonald,
respectfully bearing her burden of shame. Thus, the softer, more submissive traits that
Luke imputed upon this woman through his editorial modification of Mark were
similarly introduced by the scribe responsible for this variant reading; with the
inclusion of this potent phrase, dio\ pepoi/hkei la&qra|, he tempered her assertiveness
and rendered her humble. Such editorializing adapted the behavior of this woman to
the protocols and social mores of the dominant pagan culture, a characteristic mark of
mindful apologetic strategy.
Yet another scribal adjustment to the vocabulary of secrecy occurs in John 11:28.
Occurring in the context of the story of Jesus raising Lazarus, this verse marks the
point in the story at which Martha notifies her sister Mary that Jesus has arrived and
wishes to see her. The relevant words read:
...kai\ e0fw&nhsen Maria\m th\n a)delfh\n au0th=v la&qra| [v. l., oiwph|=] ei0pou=sa0
o9 dida&skalov pa&restin kai\ fwnei= se.
...and she called her sister Mary secretly [v. l., quietly] saying, The Teacher is here and
would speak with you.
231
The variant reading involves a change of adverb in several Western witnesses (D lat
sys) from la&qra|, meaning secretly, to siwph|=, a term rooted in silence and
perhaps best translated here as quietly. Even though what sits before us, in terms of
external probabilities, appears to be the classic case of a few Western witnesses
standing against all the rest of the textual tradition, this does not constitute a Western
Non-interpolation. The transcriptional alteration in this instance neither abbreviates
or omits textual material resident elsewhere; rather, the variant reading consists of one
adverb substituted for another. In considering which reading was original, C. K.
Barrett entertains the possibility that siwph|= may well be right, but he offers no
argument to support his hypothesis.86 Stylistic preference could be adduced to explain
the change in either direction. Certainty on this matter is difficult, although external
evidence weighs most heavily in support of la&qra| as the product of the author. If this
is so, apologetic concern with the appearance of secrecy language being ascribed to
Christians might explain the substitution of siwph|=. The effect of the change is
precisely to eliminate the vocabulary of secrecy by replacing it the rhetoric of serene
gentility. In the amended text, therefore, Martha approaches her grieving sister gently
and quietly, not covertly or surreptitiously.
These verses demonstrate that scribes, on occasion, modified from their
exemplars certain texts that featured the theme or rhetoric of secrecy. These editorial
alterations served, on the one hand, to discard nuances that intimated secrecy as a
subversive pattern on the part of Christians; and, on the other hand, to define features
of secrecy commonly associated with Christians as expressions of humility and piety,
not insubordination or insurrection.
SCRIBAL CHARACTERIZATION OF OPPONENTS AS EVIL
Sometimes, today it is commonplace to say, the best defense is a great

offense. In ancient campaigns of verbal mudslinging, Christian apologists frequently
applied the principles that lie at the foundation of this familiar adage. Again and again,
defenders of the faith depicted themselves and their fellow believers as innocent
victims of grave misunderstandings among the uninformed masses and as the
righteous prey of deliberate malfeasance on the part of corrupt authorities. Examples
abound, but certainly the most dramatic is Melito, who in his Peri Pascha portrayed Jews
as cruel adversaries who in no uncertain terms were Christ-killers. Athenagoras
accused the opponents of Christ of acting out of their own evil impulses (kata\ ta\v
e0piqumi/av au0tw=n ta\v ponhra&v) to commit the most dreadful acts of evil, including
adultery, pillaging, and murder.87 Theophilus declared that godless mouths falsely
accuse believers, and redirects accusations of cannibalism, atheism, and unlawful
intercourse toward pagans devoted to their corrupt polytheistic myths.88 Aristides
86
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John, 331.

Leg. 11.3; cf. W. R. Schoedel, 25.
88
Autol., III.4, 9.
87
232
projected many of the pejoratives pointed at Jesuse.g., that he was a sorcerer and
madonto Greek deities; moreover, he labeled the Greeks themselves laughable,
foolish and impious (ge/loia kai\ mwra\ kai\ a0sebh=), and described them as quick to
take occasion to commit fornication and abominable acts.89
Since it is evident that Christian apologists made full use of this rhetorical strategy,
the following catalogue of variant readings that betray this same offensive scheme
serves as additional support for my thesis. In these verses we will see how scribes have
modified their texts by either introducing into or emphasizing within their texts the
characterization of adversaries as in some way evil. At these several points copyists
have used their transcriptional changes to sharpen the distinction between Jesus and
his opponents, toward the end of presenting Jesus as a good person who fell victim
to wicked people. This depiction once again serves the apologetic purpose of
presenting the death of Jesus not as an execution under Roman authority, but as a
premeditated lynching at the hands of a manipulated, violent mob. In other words, in
subtle ways scribes are trying to enforce the apologetic message, We are not the bad
guys; they are.
Luke 5:22 serves as one example. Here in this Gospels depiction of Jesus first
forgiving and then healing a lame man, scribes and Pharisees murmur under their
breath that Jesus speaks blasphemy. Aware of their musings, Jesus addresses them,
Why do you question in your hearts? (ti/ dialogi/zesqe e0n tai=v kardi/aiv u9mw=n;).
Certain witnesses of the Western tradition, though, heighten the tension in this
question by inserting the object ponhra&, so that the text translates, Why do you
ponder wicked things in your hearts? Here, the transcriptional characterization of the
scribes and Pharisees leaves nothing to the imagination. Their musings consist of
malevolence.
In similar fashion, Codex Bezae (D) and the Old Latin manuscript b embellish the
text of Luke 11:39 by inserting after Pharisees the added modifier hypocrites
(u9pokritai/). Although this interpolation may be explained in terms of assimilation
to Matthew (23:25), the effect of the insertion is not benign and should not be so easily
dismissed. Something similar can be said with regard to the almost identical
assimilation to Matthew that appears in Luke 11:44, where A (D) W Q Y f 13 Maj syp.h
bopt infix grammatei=v kai\ Farisai=oi u9pokritai/ at a point original Luke did not
have it. Again in Luke 20:23, predominantly Western witnesses (C* D pc a e l r1
sys.c.hmg) alter the report that, in the face of those seeking to entrap him, Jesus perceived
not their craftiness (panourgi/an), as other manuscripts read, but their evil (ponhri/an).
A related change is located in Luke 6:11. When Jesus heals a man with a withered hand
on the Sabbath, the on looking scribes and Pharisees begin to talk amongst themselves
what they are going to do with Jesus. What is evidently the original Greek reads
matter-of-factly enough, diela&loun pro\v a)llh/louv ti/ a2n toih/saien tw| /Ihsou=,
89
Ap. Aristides VIII. For both the English translation and Greek text see J. R. Harris,
Apology of Aristides, (TS 1; J. A. Robinson, ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891),
41 and 104.
233
They began talking with one another about what to do with Jesus. Codez Bezae,
though, transforms this otherwise benign verse into a precursor of violence.
Manuscript D reads, dielogi/zonto pro\v a)llh/louv pw=v a)pole/swsin au0to/n,
They began to discuss with each other how they might destroy him.
Scribes have similarly modified the Johannine account of Jesus healing on the
sabbath. Where what is accepted as the original text of John 5:16 reads, And this
was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he performed these acts on the sabbath,
scribes represented by the Majority text along with A Q Y (f 13) e q (f r1) syp.h bopt have
changed the text to read, And on account of this, because he performed these acts on
the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to kill him (kai\ e0zh/toun au0to\n
a)poktei=nai).
Other examples of ascribing wickedness to the scribes and Pharisees, in particular,
may be located in Matthew 23:25 and Matthew 26:3. The first of these occurs in the
Matthean collection of woes, and finds Jesus directly accusing the scribes and Pharisees
of hypocrisy. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you purify the
outside of the cup and plate, while outside they remain full of extortion and void of
discipline (a(rpagh=v kai\ a)krasi/av). Scribal tampering, however, has resulted here
in several variant readings, in which the term a)krasi/av (lack of self-control) has been
either altered or embellished. The sources C K G 579 700 f syp substitute
a)diki/av(unrighteous) for a)krasi/av, while W (syh ) transmit both terms. Clement of
Alexandria as well as S l 844* lat sys co report the reading that replaces a)krasi/av
with a)kaqarsi/av (unclean). Finally, M pc bear witness to pleoneci/av (greed,
covetousness, the proclivity to seek advantage or grab more than ones share) in lieu
of a)krasi/av. Each of these readings somehow intensifies a negative trait on the part
of Jesus enemies. What begins as a lack of discipline attributed to the scribes and
Pharisees escalates into spiritual and moral decay. By the stroke of a pen, they are
declared unrighteous, unclean, or greedy to the point of covetousness (thereby
breaking one of the ten commandments). With the result of similar character
assassination, some scribes amplified the guest list of those chief priests and elders
who assembled at the home of Caiaphas to plot against Jesus. The Majority text, Old
Latin, Peshitta and Harklean Syriac report the insertion of kai\ oi9 gramma&teiv (the
scribes), while the Freer Codex announces the presence at this gathering of the
Pharisees (kai\ oi9 Farisai=oi). It is possible in this last instance that Christian scribes
here were influenced by the other evangelists. Mark and Luke report that it was the
chief priest and scribes who took counsel how to eliminate Jesus, while John reports
that the chief priests and Pharisees called the Sanhedrin into session.90 Still, based on
previously cited examples, it lies well within the scope of reason and the confines of
scribal practice to speculate that Christian copyists may have borrowed from Synoptic
sources for the specific purpose of expanding the noose of culpability, in order to loop
it as well around the necks of the scribes and Pharisees.
90
Mk 14:1, Lk 22:2, and Jn 11:47.
234
In each of this series of variant readings, there may be observed an effort on the
part of scribes to intensify the breach that exists between his adversaries and Jesus. To
be sure, they did not create the breach. Resistant opposition resided at the most
foundational level of the gospel narrative. Prior to any evidence of scribal tampering,
these texts reported friction between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees, or, in the
case of the Fourth Gospel, the Jews and Jesus. Christ, readers are informed, sensed
in their questions and murmurs wily antagonism. For his compulsion to heal on the
Sabbath he was persecuted. When thwarted, his adversaries held counsel as to what
their next move should be. Christian copyists did not import conflict into the story.
What they did do, though, as evidenced in these variant readings, was to heighten the
tensions and raise the stakes of this conflict. Thus, they characterized the breach that
existed between Jesus and his enemies in the dialect of good and evil. Jesus sensed on
the part of his opponents not merely cunning but concupiscence. They were not
merely wily but wicked. Where Jesus acted out of a ready compassion willing to
disregard ritual regulations if they stood in the way of alleviating human suffering, his
opponents staunchly clung to the law with an at all costs attitude that spawned
violence. Repeatedly, scribes altered the text to sharpen the contrast between Jesus and
his Jewish adversaries. Jesus, they cast, as good, compassionate, openly ready to help;
the Jews were wicked, hard-hearted, and desperately afraid of this good man with his
eager dedication to heal. They were so wicked, the scribes inserted as fact, that they
began to plot his murder.
The origin of these variants clearly lies beyond the scope of mechanical
explanation. They have found their way into the textual tradition at the hand of scribes
who were, arguably, motivated by apologetic interests.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter I have sought to demonstrate a direct correlation between the
content and/or effects associated with a select quantity of textual variants and certain
major themes and strategies Christian apologists employed in constructing their pleas
and defenses to Roman authorities. The data marshaled here seems more than
sufficient, both by degree of correlation and sheer mass, to indicate that these
canonical products of scribal labor undeniably manifest the influence of apologetic
interests.
Scribes interjected into the scriptures rhetoric that accentuated the corrupt
character of Christian adversaries and emphasized that the death of Jesus was not a
case of Roman justice but mob violence. Also, they input subtleties that interpreted
perceptions of secrecy, not as the clandestine atmosphere of moral turpitude, magic, or
political intrigue, but as the natural, ordained nesting place for Christian piety and
humility. Even more conspicuously, copyists of the New Testament Gospels borrowed
key terms from apologetic discourse to imbue scriptural personalities or events with
features more desirable or palatable to Romans. Scribes arranged for the declaration
from Pilates own lips that Jesus was di/kaiov, and, in the precise contours of Justins
diatribe, modified instances where basilei/a insinuated political implications. Finally,
235
reflected in the scribal tradition are small signs of the impulse that prevailed until the
events surrounding Constantine rendered it superfluous: the so-called exoneration of
Pilate. Sometimes bold, often oblique, but generally consistent signs entered the corpus
of Christian literature that portrayed Pilate not as the judge whose verdict proved fatal
for Christ, but as a Roman witness whose testimony left incontestable the matter of
Jesus innocence. Following the lead of many literary defenders of the faith, certain
concerned copyists of the New Testament Gospels revised their exemplars in accord
with the apologetic hermeneutic that was quickly, and quite necessarily, gaining
currency in their day. After all, to carry out their labors in ways that rendered both
reverence to God and honor to the emperor, as Theophilus had insisted, was directed
by scripture. In a sense, then, altering the text was for them keeping the faith.
6
THE INFLUENCE OF APOLOGETIC INTERESTS
ON THE TEXT OF THE CANONICAL GOSPELS
The scribes of our era have names, such as HewlettPackard, Canon, and Xerox.
Such was not the case long ago. Little is known of the ancient copyists who manually
reproduced documentsNew Testament manuscripts in particularand who, for the
most part, remain anonymous.1 So, although the character of the New Testament as
a work of literature and historical significance might rightfully be said to reflect a long
and distinguished heritage, the fact remains that we are incapable of tracing with
precision its genealogical origins. Those persons most responsible for propagating this
corpus of literary work are least known. Despite the traditional sobriquets we assign
the Gospels, both their birth mothers (evangelists) and foster parents (scribes) remain
faceless and nameless.
Among the sketchy knowledge we do possess is the recognition that these scribes
were counted among the very slight but significant minority of ancients whom we
would deem literate.2 Yet, while their abilities to read and write distinguished them as
members of a slender segment of the population, this distinction did not necessarily
correspond to an elevated social status. We must not confuse literacy with superiority
of rank or intellectual ability. Still, no complete or accurate history of the New
Testament text can be written without devoting adequate attention to these unknown
scribes. In the end, though, we know them only by their works, and their works we
know only by means of the historical process of textual transmission. Thus, the study
of the New Testament textual criticismwhether it is acknowledged or notis
necessarily a study of evolution, of scribes, and of words that have been altered in their
transmission. Despite theological declarations to the contrary, no one speaking from
a historical perspective may deny the editorial character and changing face of the New
Testament text. We simply do not possess the autographs. Period.
1
For the most recent (and quite thorough) investigation into the ancient scribes who
copied sacred texts see Kim HainesEitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters
of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). HainesEitzen laments the
dearth of direct evidence about scribes, yet observes that many clues about them may be located
in the mountain of manuscripts produced by their hands. From these clues she gleans a number
of historical insights about scribes and certain dynamics lying back of the transmission of the
New Testament text.
2
For a thorough discussion of literacy in antiquity see William Harris, Ancient Literacy
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989).
237
238
Therefore, textual criticism is at its essence not only a literary enterprise, but a
historical discipline as well. Yet, for most of the history of the critical discipline, the
majority of textual scholars focused exclusively on the singular task of recovering the
original text of the New Testament.3 Only in the past century have scholars of the
New Testament text begun to harvest the potential of examining formerly discarded
variant readings for what they tell us about how historical and social forces shaped the
text. Various studies have shown how the evolving Christian reactions to Judaism,4
efforts to suppress the public role of women in the early church,5 asceticism,6 and the
christological controversies of the second and third centuries7 impacted and
transformed the text of the canonical New Testament.
I have used the publication of Kirsopp Lakes The Influence of Textual Criticism on the Exegesis
of the New Testament (Oxford: Parker and Son, 1904) as the watershed for this line of inquiry.
Although one may discern even earlier in the work of Westcott and Hort sensitivity to historical
forces, Horts declaration that there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for
dogmatic purposes (WH, Introduction, 28283) served as an obstacle to this line of inquiry
that was challenged eloquently and admirably by Lake when he termed the text of Westcott and
Hort a failure, though a splendid one(3).
4
The primary work is that of Eldon J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Cantabrigiensis
in Acts. (SNTSMS 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966). See, however, C. K.
Barrett, Is There a Theological Tendency in Codex Bezae? in Text and Interpretation: Studies in
the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black, E. Best and R. McL. Wilson, eds. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1979), 1527, who challenges Epps thesis on the grounds that the
redactor responsible for Codex Bezae may have been exaggerating tendencies already located
in Acts rather than imposing his own anti-Judaic bias. Still, in my judgment and that of many
others, Epps basic thesis stands. Historical and social forces may be reflected in what
tendencies a scribe or editor mollifies or emphasizes in the process of transmission. Epp is not
suggesting that Codex Bezae has been rewritten anew; he is noting that many of the changes in
Acts underscore and enhance an anti-Judaic bias.
5
For the influence of this dynamic on the text see, e.g., Elizabeth Schssler Fiorenza, In
Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad,
1983), 5152; Ben Witherington, The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the Western Text in Acts,
JBL 103 (1984), 8284, and idem, On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and
Other DisciplesLuke 8:13, ZNW 70 (1979), 24348. For fullscale studies of how the
subordination of women evolved in early Christianity see E. S. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her; Karen
Jo Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Womens Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their
Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper, 1993); and Ross Shepherd Kraemer,
Her Share of the Blessings: Womens Religions Among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman
World (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).
6
Although this dynamic has been studied less than some of the others, Bart Ehrman signals
the potential of this avenue of study in his article, The Text of the Gospels at the End of the
Second Century, in D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux, eds. Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel
Colloquium 1994 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996) 95122, esp. 12122.
7
Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological
Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1993).
APOLOGETIC INFLUENCE ON THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
239
Also among those historical and editorial influences upon the New Testament
texts were dynamics that proceeded from a defensive posture against pagan opponents
of the Jesus movement. In the process of locating, juxtaposing, comparing, and
analyzing intentional variant readings produced by copyists of the canonical Gospels
with the dominant themes and strategies of second and third century Christian
apologists, this study has sought to inform our understanding of the extent to which,
the frequency with which, the methods by which, and the reasoning behind which
scribes sometimes modified their exemplars under the influence of apologetic interests.
The New Testament was not completely unfamiliar to or ignored by pagan critics
of the movement. Among such critics, Celsus and Porphyry demonstrated a
particularly keen acquaintance with Christian sacred writings, and it appears that in
some clear cases scribes may well have modified their exemplars in direct reaction to
their informed assaults.8 Celsus, in fact, was aware that such amendments were being
effected. Origen in his Contra Celsum preserved this declaration from the learned critics
True Logos:9
Although you lied you were not able to conceal plausibly your fictitious tales. Some
believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to oppose themselves and alter
the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its
character to enable them to deny difficulty in the face of criticism.10
To the extent that the thesis of this volume has been demonstrated, Celsus was in this
assertion correct. Some copyists of New Testament Gospels did in fact, on occasion,
Several instances have been suggested in this volume. Perhaps the most obvious are the
altered readings of John 7:8 and Mark 6:3. See the discussions above, pp.13242 and 18588,
respectively.
9
Among those provocative ironies of history resides this fact: the sole reason there remains
extant any single phrase from Celsus True Logos, a work that proved significant in generating
pagan hostilities against nascent Christianity, is that much of its content was preserved verbatim
in the Christian apology Contra Celsum, a work penned as a favor to his friend and benefactor
Ambrose by the learned Origen, who was himself later declared a heretic. Much has been said
about True Logos and Contra Celsum throughout this volume. For the critical Greek text see M.
Borret, Contra Celse, and for the English translation H. Chadwick, Contra Celsum. See also the
background discussion in the initial chapter of this volume, pp. 3840, and the notes there for
other relevant bibliography.
It bears repeating here that scholars continue to dispute the lasting effects of True Logos and
puzzle over why Ambrose commissioned Origen to craft an address to a polemical work nearly
eighty years old. Joseph W. Trigg, Origen, 5261, points out, however, that despite Origens
hesitation to rescue from oblivion a work he had never heard of before (53) revival of the
critique of Celsus does appear to have played a part in engendering among the Roman ruling
class a new wave of antipathy against Christians (61). Trigg notes further that Contra Celsum (ca.
248 or 249 C.E.) appeared in close chronological proximity to the advent of the Decian
persecution (24951 C.E.).
10
Cels. II.27. The translation is that of H. Chadwick, Contra Celsum, 90.
240
alter their exemplars to avoid or reduce difficulties in the face of criticism; that is,
some scribes occasionally modified the text of the Gospels under the influence of apologetic interests.
Such scribes, therefore, proved neither benign nor mechanical in their
transmissional labors; they often showed themselves to be sentient, mortal beings
subject to both banal error and creative outbursts. The same scribes that, more than
any other group, are the reason the text of the New Testament survived to the present
are also almost exclusively responsible for the various and numerous flaws and
corruptions that found their way into the textual traditionerrors, omissions,
harmonizations, corrections, editorial and stylistic changes, and intentional
modifications. Thus, it is their story in relationship to the texts they copied that must
be understood if the history of the transmission of the New Testament is ever to be
written, and if the historical significance of the altered text is ever to be measured.11
This study has been an effort to contribute to this symbiotic tale of the scribes and
their texts.
Methodologically, the foundation of this study has been rooted in the recognition
that textual transmission did not occur in a historical vacuum. Our efforts have built
on this astute observation of J. Rendel Harris:
The Bible of any given church becomes affected by the church in which it circulates.
The people who handle the text leave their fingerprints on the pages, and the
trained detective can identify the criminal who made the marks.12
This study has consisted in large measure of a scrupulous search for those fingerprints,
and in the course of this investigation certain scribes have been implicated. Despite
their anonymity, their marks have been found all over the textual tradition of the
canonical Gospels. The nearly one hundred variant readings adduced in this volume
consist of modifications to the text that arguably appear both intentional in nature and
apologetic in character. In other words, these readings attest to alterations of the
canonical Gospels effected by copyists who, in their work of transmitting them, edited
their exemplars with apologetic interests clearly and consciously in mind.
The precise strategies by which they effected these changes, we have noted, were
widely diverse and, usually, quite subtle; yet, in the course of reproducing the text
certain scribes honed or refined the narrative to the apologetic advantage of the
Christian cause. We located evidence in some readings that scribes occasionally
corrected, refined, or harmonized their exemplars in ways that addressed criticism
directed at the intellectual integrity of the early Christian movement and its sacred
writings. We uncovered other variant readings that appear to have been shaped in
11
The quoted phrase is borrowed from the 1997 Kenneth W. Clark Lectures given at Duke
University given by Bart D. Ehrman, the title of which was Text and Transmission: The
Historical Significance of the Altered Text. These lectures were delivered February 1314,
1997.
12
J. Rendel Harris, Was the Diatessaron Anti-Judaic?, 103.
241
accordance with the Christian claim to antiquity and prophetic fulfillment, both of
which were central themes in early apologetic literature.
In others we observed Christian scribes airbrushing the portrait of Jesus,
smoothing from certain angles of his profile features that gave the appearance of him
resembling a man of profane temperament, acting indecisively, practicing the arts of
thaumaturgy or deception, or leading a band of miscreants into treasonous rebellion.
By omission, correction, embellishment, and other forms of editorial repair, these
copyists refined the Jesus fashioned by the original evangelists into a kinder, gentler
Jesus. To be sure, they did not completely reinvent Jesus; his essence remained intact.
Akin to cooks adapting a recipe, though, some scribes on occasion chose to eliminate
harsh spices and bitter flavors in order to serve up a Jesus that was less unsavory and
more tolerable to the distinctive palates of the Greco-Roman establishment.
Located also were textual modifications designed to defend Christian disciples
against the perceptions that followers of Jesus consisted of rabid fanatics, pedestrian
fools, and hysterical females. Christian transcribers once again tweaked elements of
their narratives in order to reduce the validity of the affronts directed at disciples of
Christ. Women were acknowledged as followers, but their high visibility and intimacy
with Jesusrendered problematic in pagan rhetoricwas reconfigured into more
acceptable social categories. For example, the report of women who took the initiative
in following Jesus from Galilee, an image repugnant to many in the pagan public, was
edited to read wives of those who followed Jesus from Galilee, thus rendering a
more conventional description of the females of antiquity.13 Similarly, scribes improved
the ethical and moral perceptions of Jesus disciples by depicting them as persons
representing more than the lowest social classes, and as people of sobriety and piety.
In the context of this conversation it was also recognized how many of the features
that constitute the various scribal compositions that extended the Gospel of Mark
beyond 16:8 mirror the content and rhetoric of Christian apologetic discourse.14
Scribes also modified their exemplars mindful of the political environment in which
they dwelled and to which they were vulnerable. Sources reflect how the evolution in
pagan reactions to Christianity from indifference to infuriation shaped the official state
reaction of Rome to the new faith, and in turn led scribes to modify their exemplars
to soften and mollify some of the implications of subversion and societal threat
resident in the text. Here we located scribal changes in the New Testament text that
rooted secrecy in piety and not sedition; that exonerated Pilate from direct
responsibility for the sentence and execution of Jesus, thus making him and his
13
See above, pp. 2823, the discussion of Mark15:4041 and parallels in light of the
Fragment believed by many to be part of Tatians Diatessaron found at Dura-Europus. See
especially Carl H. Kraeling, A Greek Fragment of Tatians Diatessaron from Dura, and E. C. Colwell,
Method in Locating a Newly Discovered Manuscript, 389.
14
See the discussion above, pp. 28797, in which attention is paid to the so-called Shorter
Ending, Longer Ending, and Freer Logion, pointing out features of each that reflect apologetic
concerns and discourse.
242
movement seem less subversive to Roman authorities; and that revised occurrences of
Kingdom (basilei/a) language in such a way as to emphasize the divine nature of
Jesus message and reduce any political misunderstandings that might be derived from
it. Some variant readings even showed that scribes occasionally followed apologists in
fighting fire with fire, occasionally embellishing descriptions of Jesus opponents
within the Gospels by attaching ad hominem labels to them.
In no small measure, then, the history of the transmission of the text is as much
a story of scribes as it is manuscripts. The innumerable variant readings are each and
every one the product of some scribe somewhere in some time engaged for some
reason in the sober enterprise of transcribing scripture. Those committed to the goal
of reconstructing the original text, then, must perform exegesis on the variant
readings themselves. They must seek to place the variant readings as accurately as
possible within a bona fide Sitz im Leben so that they may be fully regarded and
evaluated as components of the original or an amended text.
Once recognized as part of the altered text, however, those variant readings
should not be randomly discarded, but carefully sifted through a sieve of historical
examination toward the end of unearthing clues and insights into the unfolding history
of nascent Christianity. The constraints of cultural norms and the pressures of
historical forces informed and motivated scribes engaged in reproducing sacred texts
sometimes to modify their exemplars to correct, harmonize, mollify, satisfy, or
otherwise ameliorate polemic tensions. Textual transmission did not occur in a
historical vacuum.
Therefore, textual criticism is necessarily a historical discipline. It is not enough
for textual scholars to gain acquaintance with manuscripts; it is incumbent upon those
who attempt to recover the original text to comprehend, to the extent the evidence
affords, the historical events, circumstances, and forces that constituted the dynamic
contexts out of which these texts and copies were first written and then transcribed.
Traditional exegetes have long recognized this. They have advocated that the text
cannot be understood apart from its Sitz im Leben, i.e., from history, from its context,
from the setting of its author and audience. What has been often overlooked by these
same exegetes, however, is that before the text can be read in its historical setting it
must be reconstructed, and to do so is no small feat. Such textual reconstruction
requires assemblingor, for the optimist, reassemblingso many jigsaw pieces strewn
broadly in a seemingly cavalier fashion across the manuscript tradition, fitting together
this reading from that codex, borrowing that phrase from this papyrus, and so forth,
guided not by a preconceived pattern but by methodological principles.15 To continue
15
This statement betrays my bias against this feature of the local-genealogical method
subscribed to by the Alands, whereby they do, in measuring variant readings, assume a prior
pattern. For them the so-called Strict text, which corresponds generally to the text-type
known as Alexandrian (or in Westcott and Horts nomenclature, Neutral), serves as the point
of departure for all textual analysis. For the description of this method see Kurt and Barbara
Aland, The Text of the New Testament. (Leiden, 1989, 28081; and Barbara Aland, Die
243
the analogy, this is akin to piecing together a puzzle on the basis of shape alone, with
no colors or pattern to provide direction.
What should be clear by now is that the text has not survived as a relic of a distant
past, but as something that lived and was adapted in response to change, much like an
evolutionary species adapting to its environment.16 This analogy, of course, threatens
to break down in the assertion that manuscripts do not possess life, but that assertion
holds true only if one fails to see that manuscripts do not exist at all except as the
products of trained, sentient, vulnerable, reactionary human beings. There is a sense,
then, in which it is fair to say that manuscripts are begotten, not made, brought into
being by human beings and brought forward through history by them, as well.
Surviving ancient texts, then, result from labortedious, intense, focused, and
wearisome labor. Pressing this analogy only slightly further, although the evangelist
may be thought of as the birth mother of the Gospel, the scribe functions in a number
of other roles in maintaining this newborn entity, including at times midwife, wet
nurse, and even adoptive parent. The human infant will not survive unless it is held,
kept warm, duly nurtured, and, occasionally and quite necessarily, changed. Ancient
texts, too, in order to survive to the next generation had to be handled frequently and
carefully; they had to be transmitted, transcribed, copied by hand. And
sometimesagain much like an infantthey had to be changed.
Sacred texts, although born of natural parents (their authors), all too quickly leave
the secure possession of their first home and become the possession of an extended
family (the community for whom they are authoritative). Leaving its home and
evolving under the influence of an extended and diverse religious community, the text
gains a new life of prominence in that community when it is determined to be
authoritative. This new life, though, is symbiotic in character. Sacred texts both shape
and are shaped by the communities and believers who locate authority in them. They
levy a certain influence over and benefit to those communities, but those communities
also define and propagate their sacred texts. The texts are preserved as they are passed
on, transmitted, and copied by Christian scribes. The text may itself pass on life or be
given new life when a scribe copies it, transferring its life to what was a tabula rosa, the
scribe serving sometimes as midwife, and sometimes as stepparent.
Mnsteraner Arbeit am Text des Neuen Testaments und ihr Beitrag fr die frhe berlieferung
des 2. Jahrhunderts: Eine methodologische Betrachtung, Gospel Traditions in the Second Century
(W. L. Petersen, ed.; South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 5570. For an
insightful treatment of this method see Jacobus H. Petzer, The History of the New Testament
TextIts Reconstruction, Significance, and Use in New Testament Textual Criticism, New
Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Church History: A Discussion of Methods (B. Aland and J.
Delobel, eds.; Kampen, The Netherlands: Pharos, 1994), 132. For an animadversion see Bart
D. Ehrman, A Problem of Textual Circularity: The Alands on the Classification of New
Testament Manuscripts, Biblica 70 (1989) 37788.
16
This is the theme of the recent book by D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
244
The purpose of this study has been to extend our current understanding of the
history of the New Testament text. More and more the fog has dissipated and it has
grown clear that a calculus of personal interests, historical forces, and social dynamics
functioned to produce and shape the canonical text. That is to say, the text currently
before us represents a product of evolution, not a de novo creation. Present-day readers
of the New Testament Gospels encounter a cloned subject, something that in the
process of being duplicated has been both diluted and enhanced. As such, it can be
said to bear a marked resemblance to the original, but it should never be equated
with the original. To the extent that it has become clear that apologetically-driven
concerns number among those forces that shaped the evolution of the text, my thesis
has been demonstrated: Christian copyists engaged in the reproduction of the New Testament
Gospels sometimes altered their texts in the interest of apologetic concerns.
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS STUDY
In the final analysis, the value of this study will be measured by the academy.
Meanwhile, I offer the following reflections on what I believe are the lasting effects
and contributions of this study. In addition, I suggest ideas for further work to build
on this project.
TEXTUAL IMPLICATIONS
First, and perhaps most obviously, this study has implications for reconstructing
the text of the New Testament. With regard to several variant readings in the textual
tradition of the Gospels, I have made a case for adopting a reading different from that
opted for currently by the editors of UBS4 and N-A27. In such instances, I have either
consolidated the arguments of others or mounted my own arguments for revisiting and
revising the text of the Greek New Testament as it currently appears in these editions.
Of particular interest in this regard are the following: Matthew 9:34, 13:35, 15:26,
21:44; Mark 1:41, 14:4; and John 4:25. It is my expectation that, to the extent this
volume is considered by colleagues in the guild, there will be other textual critics who
will find merit in at least some of these arguments and who will join me in taking up
the gauntlet to revise the text accordingly. Until a manuscript autograph is unearthed
from its resting place in the sand, or transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities can
somehow be transformed into certainties, our labors as producers of a canonical text
will continue to be a work in progress, semper reformanda. Subsequent published editions
of the New Testament text should incorporate the modifications suggested here that
as they are ratified by a consensus of New Testament textual critics.
In the case of some variant readings, I have attempted to construct a
thoroughgoing argument for establishing the original reading or for interpreting the
modified reading in a fresh way. In other instances, however, much remains to be
done. For example, although I believe that what I have suggested with regard to the
influence of apologetic interests on the composition of the various extensions of
Marks Gospel is viable and promising, the complexities associated with the closure of
245
Marks Gospel transcend the scope of this work. In fact, I hope to focus more
attention and study on this constellation of readings in a future project. Meanwhile, I
remain convinced that each of the so-called endings (with the exception of that ending
marked by the punctuation of Mark 16:8) represents a composition designed, at least
in part, with apologetic interests in mind.
METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
This study also has produced at least two methodological implications for
conducting the labor of textual reconstruction. First, the evidence and arguments
presented in this study serve to validate further the claims of those textual scholars
who rightly insist that the text of the New Testament must be discerned, evaluated,
and reconstructed on the basis of principles that go beyond (yet work in tandem with)
the criterion of external probabilities. The research that provides affirmation of the
thesis of this work in turn supports reasoned eclecticism as the most rational and
effective method for determining the text of the New Testament. By extension, the
conclusion that apologetic interests influenced scribes in transmitting the text implies
that scholars who are engaged in textual reconstruction and committed to accuracy
must dedicate renewed energy to the task of weighing transcriptional probabilities on
the sensitive scale of historical awareness.
During the course of this study, I should interject, I have taken great pains to
avoid the denunciation of constructing circular arguments. Therefore, when faced
with a disputed reading, I have looked to discern the original and scribally-altered
readings without reference to transcriptional arguments based on evidence of
apologetic interests. Only after evaluating readings on the bases of external evidence
and intrinsic probabilities did I make an effort to explain the resulting variant reading
in the vernacular of apologetic interests.
Now, however, that a reasonably compelling case has been made for the influence
of apologetic interests on the text of the New Testament, it appears very much in
order to suggest that textual critics should be attuned to the possible influence of
apologetic concerns when adjudicating variant readings elsewhere in the New
Testament. Although similar full-scale studies will need to be conducted with regard
to the Pauline corpus, Acts, the Deutero-Pauline writings, Hebrews, the Catholic
Epistles, the Johannine Letters, and the Apocalypse, the continuing evaluation of New
Testament variant readings in light of transcriptional probabilities should take into
consideration the possible influence of apologetic interests as they have been surveyed
here. Second, the beginnings of being able to locate the origins of some few variant
readings in relatively small chronological windows may be emerging. It is well known
within the guild of textual critics that among our sources for textual
reconstructionmanuscripts, versions, and patristic sourcesonly patristic writings
246
can be fixed in chronology and location with any degree of precision.17 Except for rare
instances, therefore, scholars have seldom been able to date with any desirable degree
of precision at what point particular scribal modifications entered the textual tradition.
Yet, by carefully constructing the sorts of intersections represented by this
studyintersections between the undatable textual tradition and the datable patristic
(in this case apologetic) corpussome hope of locating some variants in time (and
even space) might be possible. I do not mean to promise too much. In addition to the
unyielding chronological mysteries connected to the manuscript tradition, difficulties
arise also from the fact that very little pagan polemical prose survived the exigencies
of history or the book burnings mandated by bishops or emperors. Since we do not
have a complete corpus of pagan anti-Christian writings, we cannot with absolute
certainty directly associate changes in the text that appear to have been motivated in
response to a specific challenge from a particular pagan writer simply on the basis that
his work survived to the present. Is Celsus, in fact, the first pagan writer to assail the
character of Jesus? Is Porphyry original in his specific attacks on scriptural integrity?
Can the arguments recorded in the Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes be connected with
any accuracy to Porphyry? Fortunately, our judgments on these questions can achieve
a high level of probability based on our efforts to apply strictly the calculus of
plausibility. Still, we must be careful not to assert more than we can positively maintain;
we must balance our zeal to know with an admission of what we do not know.
With that caveat issued, there do appear to be some conclusions we can draw with
a large measure of confidence. Particularly in the ways Christian writers address,
respond to, and reflect on pagan critics, it seems clear that certain censures and
denouncements were, in fact, associated with individual pagan critics. In particular, I
am thinking of Eusebius and his treatment of Porphyry, and even more especially the
retort of Origen to Celsus. In these cases we can with some confidence identify a
historical window in which certain specific disputes are given temporal location. In
these cases, it becomes theoretically feasible to locate the scribal origins of certain
intentional variant readings that feature the contours of this specific pagan-apologetic
discourse within this same window of time. With additional investigation and
increasing knowledge it might prove possible in some cases to connect the dots
between certain transcriptional readings and related pagan and patristic sources in such
a way that additional light might be shed on particular readings, manuscripts,
manuscript traditions, or versional witnesses. For example, the modification of Mark
6:3 may with high probability have been introduced into the textual tradition sometime
17
See, e.g., discussions in Gordon D. Fee, The Use of the Greek Fathers for New
Testament Textual Criticism, in Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes, eds. The Text of the New
Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1995) 191207; and Bart D. Ehrman, The Use and Significance of Patristic Evi-dence for NT
Textual Criticism, in B. Aland and J. Delobel, eds. New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and
Early Church History (Kampen, The Netherlands: Pharos, 1994).
247
between the publication of Celsus True Doctrine (ca. 170 C.E.) and Origens Contra
Celsum (ca. 248249 C.E.), most likely motivated by apologetic interests.18
HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS
This study serves to ratify what the last century of scholarship discovered and
maintained: that New Testament textual criticism is no longer an independent literary
discipline with its singular task being that of reconstructing the canonical text.19 It is
no longer possible to ignore the historical forces that directed the evolution of the text.
Reconstructing the text consists no more of merely constructing stemmata,
categorizing family trees of manuscripts, and evaluating readings on the basis of
external and literary evidence alone. Transcriptional probabilities especially must be
determined, understood, and evaluated against the backdrop of a scribal Sitz im Leben,
with particular attention to the dynamic social and historical energies that motivated
and directed scribes in their work.
In pursuit of this line of investigation, I appreciate in particular the efforts of Kim
Haines-Eitzen in her attempt to shed light on the anonymous scribes who are
ultimately the subject of every textual scholars labor.20 Efforts to recover the
original text must begin to resemble more and more the labors of archaeologists,
who recognize better than most who seek knowledge of the past that the only way to
go backward in time is to dig downward through history. Such investigation is not
confined, however, to the perusal of ruins and solid artifacts; variant readings
themselves are artifacts, products of people writing at a time and place in history.
Despite their anonymity, therefore, the historical dynamics and social forces that
influenced these scribes must be understood, or at the very least recognized. Copyists
labored for a variety of reasonsfrom profit to piety; and, in some cases, their own
personal agendas or concerns gave rise to an intentional choice to change the exemplar
they were engaged in copying. In most cases, the sorts of deliberate changes which
have been the focus of this studyparticularly those resulting from christological
concerns and apologetic interestswould have more likely been produced by copyists
who had the most invested in the texts themselves, i.e., who had something to gain or
lose from what was penned on the page. Therefore, these acts of intentional
modification of canonical writingsreadily observable not only to the trained eye but
to the attentive readerstand as historical artifacts, and teach us something important
about how these early believers viewed the sacred texts they were copying.
18
See the discussion of this variant reading above, pp. 18588.

Very recently this has been affirmed by Larry W. Hurtado, Beyond the Interlude?
Developments and Directions in New Testament Textual Criticism, in Studies in the Early Text
of the Gospels and Acts, D. G. K. Taylor, ed. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999) 2648,
esp. 436.
20
K. HainesEitzen, Guardians of Letters.
19
248
One of the most dramatic historical (and theological) lessons is this: whatever it
was that was sacred to them about those writings did not reside in the actual words of
the exemplars themselves. For some scribes at least, the exacting word of God was not
equivalent to the exact words of scripture. The sacred message was transmitted in and
through words of scripture, but the medium was not the message. The degree of
homage with which many in todays world view the canonical text should not
obfuscate this fact.
The data adduced and analyzed in these chapters has brought some clarity to how
and why Christian scribes commissioned with transcribing the Gospels were
influenced by apologetic interests. Moreover, we have learned something of the nature
and extent to which they did so. Such changes were neither systematic nor
comprehensive, and in most cases they were subtle rather than blatant. With respect
to apologetic influences, textual transmission remained a conservative enterprise.
Another lesson gleaned from this study is the validity as well as the importance
of claiming the historical component of the discipline of New Testament Textual
Criticism. As history informs the discipline, so the discipline can release clues and
insights that shed light on history. This is a reciprocal relationship: textual critics must
claim the historical component of their labors and engage more actively in dialogue
with their historian colleagues; similarly, church historians are invited to glean fresh
new insights into their subject matter from deliberate exchanges with New Testament
textual critics.
Toward this end, though, this volume serves as but a small step. Great potential,
I believe, resides in the venture of pursuing this intersection of disciplines.21 For
example, the frequency with which Western witnesses in general, and Codex Bezae
and the Syriac traditions in particular, have testified to the apologetic variant reading
invites further study, particularly by those with the interests and linguistic capabilities
to explore in depth the Syriac versional witnesses alongside the historical, cultural, and
sociological factors that shaped the community of faith out of which those scribes that
produced these manuscripts emerged.22
21
Along these lines, more in-depth studies focused on specific manuscripts are needed,
such as that of D. C. Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992). So also the continuing investigation into the texts associated
with various Greek fathers, studies currently being affirmed by their publication in the SBL
New Testament in the Greek Fathers series, the most recent of which is Roderic L. Mullen,
The New Testament Text of Cyril of Jerusalem (SBLNTGF 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
22
Much fruitful work has already been conducted on Syriac versional tradition. See, e.g.,
Tjitze Baarda, The Syriac Versions of the New Testament, and Sebastian P. Brock, The Use
of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism, both in B. Ehrman and M.
Holmes, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, 22436; J. W. Childers, The
Syriac Evidence for the Pre-Johannine Text of the Gospel: A Study in Method, in Studies of
the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, D. G. K. Taylor, ed., 4985; Matthew Black, The Syriac
New Testament in Early Patristic Tradition, in La Bible et les Pres, A. Benoit and P. Prigent, eds.
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971) 26378; and Arthur Vbus, Studies in the History
249
There is potential also for clarifying the relationship between nascent Christianity
and evolving Judaism. Recognizing the extent to which apologetic dynamics shaped
the textual tradition might lead to a nuanced reappraisal of the nature and scope of the
influence of anti-Judaic tendencies on the New Testament text. We might inquire, for
example, how some of those readings traditionally determined to be anti-Judaic in
character might plausibly be viewed as efforts on the part of apologetically-minded
scribes to elevate the status of Christianity by claiming the legacy of antiquity and
prophetic authority rooted in Judaism.23
SUMMARY
In summary, the textual evidence garnered for this study bears testimony to the
fact that historical influences affected those anonymous scribes who were busy about
transcribing the Gospels. These were not merely disinterested copyists. To them it was
a sacred text they reproduced, but a text, too, that was open and vulnerable to outside
criticism. Certainly they understood their function to be that of copyists, not authors,
and certainly not evangelists. Yet, the survival of the movement and the perpetuity of
the Gospel appears to have been for them a more profound responsibility than the
stoic reproduction of a manuscript. For them, it seems, a text that bore testimony to
a living spirit could easily afford a measure of liquidity in transmission. In a sense each
word mattered, yet in another sense no word mattered; only The Word mattered, only
the Logos.
So I offer this conjectural image:
In a room lit by the sunshine through a translucent window and the dim light of a candle, a scribe
sits at an angled table bent over parchment dipping his quill in ink. As he has been assigned, he
copies a copy of the Gospel of Mark. Dutifully, painstakingly, faithfully, artistically yet swiftly,
sometimes wearily, sometimes mindlessly but sometimes clearly mindful of something being at stake,
he copies. Hour after hour he copies. Oh, he has made his share of errors: an omission here, a
mechanical modification there. Rarely but occasionally, though, somethinga word, an error, a fact,
a phrase, a phrasing, a description, or an opportunitybrings him to a pause. Perhaps it has
something to do with his own cultural sensitivities. Perhaps his long-standing acquaintance with the
writings of Justin or Tatian, or something he just read or heard recently that issued from Origen
made him take notice and think twice. Perhaps he himself has felt tensions recently related to pagan
criticism, from the old arguments of Celsus that never seem to go away, or from the fresh and
informed assaults of Porphyry that bear witness to a dangerous pagan familiarity with this book he
is copying. Perhaps at this juncture he glances back over his exemplar and, in his own mind, thinks,
of the Gospel Text in Syriac. 2 vols. (CSCO 128, 496, Subsidia 3, 79; Louvain: Imprimerie
Orientaliste L. Durbecq and Peeters, 1951, 1987).
23
The foundations for such labor have been well established, as can be seen in the content
and bibliographies located in Eldon J. Epp, Theological Tendency in Codex Cantabrigiensis in Acts, and
John Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).
250

There is a better way to say this. And so he does. His stroke varies from that of the author of his
exemplar. He writes it anew, differently, his way.
Thus the text of the Gospel was reproduced and transmitted, but not without first
being interpreted and modifiedrevised, buttressed, corrected, harmonized, refined,
polished, stylized, abbreviated, enhanced, or otherwise altered.
To conclude with an analogy, if these copyists of Gospel texts may be compared
to chefs, it is fair to say that they are not in the business of creating new recipes, but
merely recreating old ones. Still, like relocated chefs who are forced to adapt their old
recipes to a new locale by incorporating spices popular to that region, these scribes
occasionally introduced new spices and accents to their exemplars, making them more
acceptable to the pagan palate. They tempered their recipes and changed the flavor,
ever so slightly; but, those who bore an appetite for things apologetic must surely have
welcomed these enhancements with the greeting, Vive la diffrence!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aland, Barbara, and Jol Delobel, eds. New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History:
A Discussion of Methods. Kampen, The Netherlands: Pharos, 1994.
Aland, Barbara. Die Mnsteraner Arbeit am Text des Neuen Testaments und ihr Beitrag fr
die frhe berlieferung des 2. Jahrhunderts: Eine methodologische Betrachtung. Gospel
Traditions of the Second Century, William L. Petersen, ed. South Bend, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1989: 5570.
Aland, Kurt.Bemerkungen zum Schluss des Markusevangeliums. Neotestamentica et Semitica,
Studies in Honor of Matthew Black. E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox, eds. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1969, 15780.
. The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism. In Text and
Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black, ed. Ernest Best and R.
McL. Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974, 114.
. Die Bedeutung des P75 fr den Text des Neuen Testaments: Ein Beitrag zur Frage des
Western non-interpolations, in idem ed., Studien zur berlieferung des Neuen Testaments und
seines Textes (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1967), 15572.
Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical
Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Williams B. Eerdmans, 1987.
Albright, W. F. and Mann, C. S. Matthew. AB 26. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971.
Allen, Willoughby C. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. ICC 26. New York: Charles Scribners
Sons, 1925.
Allison, Dale and Davies, W. D. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to
Matthew, 3 Volumes. ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.
Altaner, Berthold. Patrology. Eng. trans. Hilda C. Graef; Freiburg: Herder & Herder, 1960.
Anastos, Milton V. Porphyrys Attack on the Bible. The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical
Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan. Luitpold Wallach, ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1966: 42150.
Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible. Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1976.
Andresen, Carl. Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum. Munich: Walter de
Gruyter, 1955.
Arbesmann, R., et al., trans. Tertullian: Apologetical Works and Minucius Felix: Octavius. FC 10.
Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1950.
Aune, David E. Magic in Early Christianity, ANRW II.23.2 (1980) 150757.
Baarda, Tjitze. DIAFONIA SYMFONIA: Factors in the Harmonization of the Gospels,
Especially in the Diatessaron of Tatian, Gospel Traditions in the Second Century. William L.
Petersen, ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989: 133154.
251
252
. The Syriac Versions of the New Testament. The Text of the New Testament in
Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W.
Holmes, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995:97112.
Bammel, Ernst and Moule, C. F. D., eds. Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984.
Barnard, Leslie W. Athenagoras: A Study in Second Century Christian Apologetic. ThH 18. Paris:
Beauchesne, 1972.
. Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Barnes, Timothy D. Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and Attribution of Fragments, JTS
n.s. 24 (1973), 42442.
. Pagan Perceptions of Christianity. Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to AD 600.
London: SPCK, 1991.
. Legislation Against the Christians. Journal of Roman Studies 58 (1968): 3250.
. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Barrett, C. K. Is There a Theological Tendency in Codex Bezae? Text and Interpretation: Studies
in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black. Ernest Best and R. McL. Wilson, eds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979: 1527.
. The Gospel According to St. John. Second Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
Bauer, Walter. Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apocryphen. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1907; reprinted Darmstadt, 1967.
. Rechtglubigkeit und Ketzerei im ltesten Christentum. BHT, 10. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1934; English translation, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Trans.
Robert Kraft, et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
. The Picture of the Apostle in Early Christian Tradition, in E. Hennecke and W.
Schneemelcher, eds. New Testament Apocrypha, 2 Volumes. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964,
3574.
Behr, Charles A., ed. and trans. P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986.
. Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1968.
Bellinzoni, Arthur J. The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967.
Benko, Stephen. Pagan Criticism of Christianity during the First Two Centuries A. D. ANRW
II.23.2 (1980): 10551118.
. Pagan Rome and Early Christians. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984.
Betz, Hans Dieter, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1996.
. Secrecy in the Greek Magical Papyri, Secrecy and Concealment: Studies in the History of
Mediterranean and Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Studies in the History of Religions, Numen
Book Series 64. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995: 15375.
Bidez, J. Vie de Porphyre. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964.
Birdsall, J. Neville, The Recent History of New Testament Textual Criticism (from Westcott
and Hort, 1881, to the Present), ANRW II.26.1: 99197.
. After Three Centuries of the Study of Codex Bezae: The Status Quaestionis. Codex
Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium. D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux, eds. Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1996: xixxxx.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
253
Bond, Helen K. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. SNTSMS 100. Richard Bauckham, gen.
ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Borret, Marcel. Origne. Contre Celse, 5 Volumes. Sources Chrtiennes; Paris: Les ditions du
Cerf, 1968.
Brandon, S. G. F. The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church. London, 1951.
Brock, Sebastian P. Limitations of Syriac in Representing Greek, in Bruce M. Metzger, The
Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1977, 8398.
. The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism. The Text of the
New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Bart D. Ehrman and
Michael W. Holmes, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995: 22436.
Brown, Milton. Matthew as EIRHNOPOIOS. Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament
in honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, Ph. D. Boyd Daniels and Jack Suggs, eds. SD XXIX. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967: 3950.
Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. 2 Volumes. Anchor Bible Reference Library.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1994.
. The Gospel According to John. Anchor Bible 2929A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.
. The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority, NTS 33 (1987): 32143.
Burke, Gary T. Walter Bauer and Celsus: The Shape of Late Second-Century Christianity,
Second Century 4 (1984): 17.
Burkill, T. A. New Light on the Earliest Gospel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972.
Cadbury, H. J. The Making of LukeActs. London: SPCK, 1961.
Carroll, Kenneth L. Tatians Influence on the Developing New Testament. Studies in the
History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, Ph.D. SD XXIX. Salt
Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967: 5970.
Carter, Warren. Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.
Casey, P. M. Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel, JTS n.s. 27 (1976): 1533.
Casson, Lionel. Selected Satires of Lucian. New York: W. W. Norton, 1962.
Chadwick, Henry. Justin Martyrs Defence of Christianity. BJRL 47 (1965): 27597.
. The Evidences of Christianity in the Apologetic of Origen, in Studia Patristica II, K.
Aland and F. L. Cross, eds. Texte und Untersuchen zur Geschichte der altchristliche Literatur, 64;
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957: 33139; Reprinted in H. Chadwick, Heresy and Orthodoxy
in the Early Church. Hampshire, Great Britain: Variorum Reprints, 1991.
. Christianity and the Classical Tradition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.
. Origen: Contra Celsum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.
Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.
. Eusebius on Women in Early Church History, in Harold W. Attridge and Gohei
Hata, eds. Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992:
256269.
. Women in the Early Church. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983.
Clark, Kenneth W. The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the
Greek New Testament, JBL 85 (1966): 116.
. The Text of the Gospel of John in Third-Century Egypt, NovT 5 (1962): 1724.
254
Clarke, G. W. The Literary Setting of the Octavius of Minucius Felix. Studies in Early
Christianity, Vol II: Literature of the Early Church. Everette Fergusen, ed. New York: Garland,
1993: 12743.
. The Historical Setting of the Octavius of Minucius Felix. Studies in Early Christianity,
Vol II: Literature of the Early Church. Everette Fergusen, ed. New York: Garland, 1993:
14564.
Cobb, L. Stephanie. ...Also Some Women: An Investigation of Luke 8:3. Unpublished Paper
presented at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, April, 1997.
Colwell, E. C. Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament. NTTS 9; Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969.
. External Evidence and New Testament Textual Criticism. Boyd L. Daniels and M.
Jack Suggs, eds. Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in honor of Kenneth Willis
Clark, Ph.D. SD XXIX. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1967: 112.
Conybeare, F. C. Three Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels, Hibbert Journal
1 (190203): 96113.
Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Geoffrey Buswell, trans. New York: Harper & Row,
1961.
. Gentiles, Jews, Christians: Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-Roman Era. M. E. Boring,
trans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Craddock, Fred. Luke. Interpretation Series. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1990.
Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Cambridge Greek New Testament
Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Croke, Brian. The Era of Porphyrys Anti-Christian Polemic, JRH 31/1 (1984): 115.
Crouzel, Henri. Origen. Trans. A. S. Worrall. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.
. Bibliographie critique d'Origene. Hagae Comitis: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971.
Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1983.
DAngelo, Mary Rose. Women in LukeActs: A Redactional View. JBL 109 (1990): 44161.
Dix, Gregory, ed. The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome. Second Edition
revised by Henry Chadwick. London: SPCK, 1968.
Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Norton, 1970.
Drijvers, Hans. East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity. London: Variorum Reprint,
1984.
Droge, A. J. Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. Hermeneutische
Untersuchungen zur Theologie 26. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989.
. Apologetics, NT. Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume I, David Noel Freedman, ed. New
York: Doubleday, 1992: 30207.
Easton, Burton Scott. The Gospel According to St. Luke. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1926.
Edwards, Mark, Goodman, Martin, and Price Simon, eds. Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans,
Jews, and Christians. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Edwards, M. J. Justins Logos and the Word of God, JECS (1995): 26180.
Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies
on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
255
. The Text of the Gospels at the End of the Second Century. Codex Bezae: Studies from
the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994. D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux, eds. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1996: 95122.
. Textual Criticism of the New Testament, in Joel Green, ed. Hearing the New Testament:
Strategies for Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995: 12745.
. The Use and Significance of Patristic Evidence for NT Textual Criticism, in B. Aland
& J. Delobel, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History: A
Discussion of Methods. Kampen, The Netherlands: Pharos, 1994: 11835.
. The Cup, The Bread, and the Salvific Effect of Jesus Death in LukeActs, Society of
Biblical Literature Seminar Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991: 57691.
. The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox, in Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical
Perspective, ed. Mark Burrows and Paul Rorem. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991:1931.
. Jesus Trial Before Pilate: John 18:2819:16, BTB 13 (1983): 12431.
Ehrman, Bart D., and Holmes, Michael W, eds. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary
Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
Ehrman, Bart D., Holmes, Michael W., and Fee, Gordon D. The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the
Writings of Origen. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.
Ehrman, Bart, Epp, Eldon, and Fee, Gordon. The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the Writings of Origen,
Volume I. SBLNTGF 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
Elliott, J. K. The Apocryphal Jesus: Legends of the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1996.
. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
. A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
. An Eclectic Textual Commentary on the Greek Text of Marks Gospel, New
Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee, eds.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981: 4760.
. The Text and Language of the Endings to Marks Gospel, TZ 27 (1971): 25562.
Elliott, J. K. and Moir, Ian. Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1995.
Epp, Eldon J. The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts. SNTSMS 3;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.
. The Ignorance Motif in Acts and the Anti-Judaic Tendencies in Codex Bezae. HTR
55 (1962): 5162.
. The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism. JBL 93
(1974): 386414.
. The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New Testament, The Text of the New Testament in
Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W.
Holmes, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995: 321.
Epp, Eldon J. and Fee, Gordon D., eds. New Testament Text Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis.
Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981.
Ernst, J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Regensberg: Pustet, 1981.
Evans, Craig A. Patristic Interpretation of Mark 2:26 When Abiathar Was High Priest, VC
40 (1986): 18386.
256
Fall, Thomas, ed. and trans. Writings of Saint Justin Martyr. FC 6. Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America Press, 1948.
Farmer, W. R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Fee, Gordon D. The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: A Contribution to
Methodology in the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic Citations, Biblia 52 (1971): 35373.
. Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem. J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and TextCritical Studies 17761976. B. Orchard and T. Longstaff, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1978: 15469.
. Origens Text of the New Testament and the Text of Egypt, NTS 28 (1981): 34864.
Fergusen, Everett, ed. Church and State in the Early Church. Studies in Early Christianity Series VII.
New York: Garland, 1993.
. In Memory of Her. New York: Crossroad, 1994.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. 2 Volumes. Anchor Bible 28/28a. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1981.
Frede, M. Origens Treatise Against Celsus. M. Edwards, M. Goodman, and S. Price, eds.
Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999: 13155.
. Celsus Attack on the Christians. Jonathan Barnes and Miriam Griffin, eds.
Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997: 21840.
Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict
from the Maccabees to Donatus. New York: New York University Press, 1967.
. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
. Prelude to the Great Persecution: The Propaganda War. JEH 38/1 (1987): 118.
Gager, John G. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: PrenticeHall, 1975.
. The Origins of Anti-Semitism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Gallagher, Eugene. Divine Man or Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus. SBLDS 64. Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1982.
Gamble, Harry. Books and Readers in the Early Church. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.
Garrett, Susan. The Demise of the Devil. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.
Geffcken, Johannes. Zwei griechische Apologeten. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907. Reprinted Hildesheim:
Georg Olms Verlag, 1970.
Georgi, Dieter. Socioeconomic Reasons for the Divine Man as a Propagandistic Pattern, in
Aspects of Christian Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, E. Schssler Fiorenza, ed.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976: 2742.
Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus. 2 Volumes. Zrich: Benziger Verlag, 1979.
Goodenough, E. R. The Theology of Justin Martyr. Jena: Frommann, 1923.
Grant, Robert M. Greek Apologists of the Second Century. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988.
. Five Apologists and Marcus Aurelius, VC 42 (1988): 117.
. Theological Education at Alexandria, The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, Birger A.
Pearson and James E. Goehring, eds. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986: 17889.
. Paul, Galen, and Origen. JTS 34 (1983): 53336.
. Theophilus of Antioch: Ad Autolycum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
257
. Augustus to Constantine: The Rise and Triumph of Christianity in the Roman World. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1970.
. The Earliest Lives of Jesus. New York, 1961.
. Scripture, Rhetoric and Theology in Theophilus. VC 13 (1959): 3345.
. The Textual Tradition of Theophilus of Antioch. VC 6 (1952): 14659.
. The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch. JBL 66 (1947): 17396.
. Porphyry among the Early Christians. Romanitas et Christianitas, ed. W. den Boer, et
al. Amsterdam, 1973: 18187.
. Charges of Immorality against Various Religious Groups in Antiquity. Studies in
Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions. R. Van der Broek and M. I. Vermaseren, eds. Leiden: Brill,
1981: 161170.
Green, Joel. The Death of Jesus, Gods Servant. Reimaging the Death of the Lukan Jesus. Dennis
Sylva, ed. Bonner biblische Beitrge 73. Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1990: 128.
Greenlee, J. Harold. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1964.
Gregory, Caspar Ren. The Canon and Text of the New Testament. New York, 1924.
Guerra, Anthony. Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre, and Audience of Pauls
Letter. SNTSMS, 81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Gundry, Robert Horton. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthews Gospel. NovTSup XVIII.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967.
. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Haenchen, Ernst. John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John. 2 Volumes. Hermeneia Series. Robert
Funk, trans. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Haines-Eitzen, Kim. Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian
Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Hall, S. G., ed. Melito of Sardis: On Pascha and Fragments. OECT. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
Hargis, Jeffrey W. Against the Christians: The Rise of Early Anti-Christian Polemic. New York: Peter
Lang, 1999.
Harnack, Adolph von. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. 2
Volumes. Eng. trans. James Moffatt. First published 19045. Reprinted New York: Arno
Press, 1972.
. Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God. Translated by John Steely and Lyle Bierma.
Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1990.
. Porphyrius Gegen die Christen, 15 Bcher: Zeugnisse, Fragmente, und Referate,
Abhandlungen der kniglichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse. Number
1, Berlin, 1916.
Harrington, D. J. The Gospel of Matthew. Sacra Pagina I. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.
Harris, J. Rendel. Celsus and Aristides. Manchester, 1922. Reprinted from BJRL 6 (1922): 16375.
. New Points of View in Textual Criticism. The Expositor 8/7 (1914): 31634.
. Was the Diatessaron Anti-Judaic? HTR 18 (1925): 10309.
. The Apology of Aristides. TS I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893.
. A Study of Codex Bezae. TS II.1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891.
Harris, William. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
258
Hauck, Robert J. They Saw What They Say They Saw: Sense Knowledge in Early Christian
Polemic, HTR 81:3 (1988): 23949.
Head, Peter M. Christology and Textual Transmission: Reverential Alterations in the Synoptic
Gospels, NovT XXXV, 2 (1993): 10529.
Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1972.
Hoek, Annewies van den, The Catechetical School of Early Christian Alexandria and Its
Philonic Heritage, HTR 90 (1997): 5987.
Hoffmann, R. J. ed. and Eng. trans. Porphyry Against the Christians: The Literary Remains.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1994.
. ed. and Eng. trans. Celsus: On the True Doctrine. New York: Oxford University Press,
1987.
Holmes, Michael W. Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospels. Codex Bezae: Studies from the
Lunel Colloquium. D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux, eds. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996: 12360.
Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Blacks New Testament Commentary.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
Horbury, William. Christ as Brigand in Ancient Anti-Christian Polemic, in Ernst Bammel and
C. F. D. Moule, eds. Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1984: 18395.
Hornschuh, M. Das Leben des Origenes und die Entstehung der alexandrinischen Schule,
Zeitschrift fr Kirchengeschichte 71 (1960): 193214.
Howard, Wilbert F. The Influence of Doctrine upon the Text of the New Testament. The
London Quarterly and Halborn Review 166 (1941): 116.
Hull, John M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. Studies in Biblical Theology. Second
Series 28. London: SCM, 1974.
Hunger, Herbert. Zur Datierung des Papyrus Bodmer II (P 66), Anzeiger der sterreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl. 4 (1960): 1233.
Hurtado, Larry. Beyond the Interlude? Developments and Directions in New Testament
Textual Criticism. Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, D. G. K. Taylor, ed.
SBLTS 1. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999: 2648.
. Mark. Good News Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983.
Jackson, John, trans. Tacitus: The Annals. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1937.
Janssen, L. F. Superstitio and the Persecution of the Christians. VC 33 (1979): 13159.
Jensen, E. E. The First Century Controversy over Jesus as a Revolutionary Figure, JBL 60
(1941): 26172.
Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Translated from the German by Norman Perrin.
New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1966. German edition Die Abendsmahlsworte Jesu, Rev.
3rd ed. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.
Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God: A New Look at LukeActs. Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1972.
Joly, R. Christianisme et Philosophe: tudes sur Justin et les apologistes grecs du deuxime sicle. Brussels:
Editions de lUniversit Bruxelles, 1973.
Karris, Robert. Women and Discipleship in Luke. CBQ 56 (1994): 120.
Kenyon, Frederic G. And S. C. E. Legg. The Ministry and the Sacraments. Roderic Dunkerly, ed.
London, 1937.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
259
Keresztes, P. The Imperial Roman Government and the Christian Church. I. From Nero to
the Severi. II. From Gallienus to the Great Persecution. ANRW 23.2 (1980): 247315,
37586.
. The Literary Genre of Justins First Apology. VC 19 (1965): 99110.
. The So-Called Second Apology of Justin. Latomus 24 (1965): 85869.
Kilpatrick, G. D. Western Text and Original Text in the Gospel and Acts, in J. K. Elliott, ed.
The Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays of G. D. Kilpatrick.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990: 11327.
Klijn, A. F. J. A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts. Utrecht, 1949.
Koester, Helmut, The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century, Gospel Traditions
in the Second Century. William L. Petersen, ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1989: 1937.
. GNWMAI DIAFOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of
Early Christianity, in H. Koester and James M. Robinson, eds. Trajectories Through Early
Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971:11457.
Kraeling, Carl H. A Greek Fragment of Tatians Diatessaron from Dura. Studies and Documents III.
London: Christophers, 1935.
Kraemer, Ross Shepard. Her Share of the Blessings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
and DAngelo, Mary Rose. Women and Christian Origins. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999.
Labriolle, Pierre de. Le Raction paenne. Etude sur la polemique antichrtienne du I au VI sicle. Second
edition. Paris, 1948.
Lagrange, M.-J. vangile selon Saint Marc. Ninth edition. Paris: Libraire Lecoffre, 1966.
. vangile selon Saint Matthieu. Third Edition. tudes Bibliques. Paris: Librarie Lecoffre,
1927.
. vangile selon Saint Jean. Eighth Edition. Paris: Gabalda, 1948.
. Deux nouveaux textes relativs lvangile. Revue Biblique XLIV (1935).
Lake, Kirsopp, /EMBRIMHSAMENOS and O
/ RGISQEIS, Mark 1, 4043, HTR (1923): 1978.
. The Influence of Textual Criticism on the Exegesis of the New Testament. Oxford: Parker &
Sons, 1904.
, ed. and trans. Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History. 2 Volumes. LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Lane, William. Mark. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.
Lane Fox, Robin. Pagans and Christians. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986.
LaPorte, Jean. The Role of Women in Early Christianity. Studies in Women and Religion 7. New
York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1982.
Liddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Sir Henry Stuart
Jones, et al. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1968.
Lightfoot, R. H. St. Johns Gospel: A Commentary. C. F. Evans, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.
Lindauer, J. M. Minucius Felix: Octavius. Mnchen: Ksel-Verlag, 1964.
Lindsay, Jack, trans. Apuleius: The Golden Ass. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962.
Long, A. A. Hellenistic Philosophy, 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California, 1986.
Long, George, trans. Marcus Aurelius: Meditations. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1991.
260
Luck, Georg. Arcana Mundi: Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.
Luz, Ulrich. Matthew. A Continental Commentary. Wilhelm C. Linss, trans. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992.
MacDonald, Margaret Y. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical
Woman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
MacMullen, Ramsey. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.
. Christianizing the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
. Enemies of the Roman Order. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966.
Mann, C. S. Mark. AB 27. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986.
Marcovich, Miroslav. Tatiani: Oratio ad Graecos. PTS 43; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.
, ed. Theophili Antiocheni: Ad Autolycum. PTS 44; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995.
, ed. Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.
Marcus, Joel. Mark 18. Anchor Bible 27. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Martini, Carlo M. Is There a Late Alexandrian Text of the Gospels? NTS 24 (1978): 28596.
McGowan, Andrew. Eating People: Accusations of Cannibalism Against Christians in the
Second Century. JECS 2:3 (1994): 41342.
Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale
Melmouth, William, trans. and Moore, Clifford H., ed. The Epistles of Pliny. Boston: Bibliophile
Society, 1925.
Meredith, Anthony. Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians.ANRW II.23.2 (1981):
111949.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1975.
. Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in the New
Testament Manuscripts. Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey. J. Neville
Birdsall and Robert W. Thompson, eds. Freiberg: Herder, 1963: 7895.
. St. Jeromes Explicit References to Variant Readings in Manuscripts of the New
Testament. Text and Interpretation. Ernest Best and R. McLean Wilson, eds. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1979: 17990.
. Names for the Nameless in the New Testament: A Study in the Growth of Christian
Tradition, in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten. Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungman,
eds. Mnster, 1970: 7999.
. Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha, JBL 91 (1972): 324.
. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1977.
. The Caesarean Text of the Gospels, JBL 64 (1945): 45789.
Miura-Stange, Anna. Celsus und Origenes. Giessen, 1929.
Musurillo, H. A., ed. and Eng. trans. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1972.
Mullen, Roderic. The New Testament Text of Cyril of Jerusalem. SBLNTGF 7. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1997.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
261
Nautin, P. Trois autre fragments de livre du Porphyre Contre les Chrtiens.Revue Biblique 57
(1950): 40916.
Nestle, Wilhelm. Die Haupteinwnde des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum. Archiv fr
Religionswissenschaft (Leipzig) 73 (194142): 51100.
Niperdey, Karl and Georg Andresen, eds. P. Cornelius Tacitus: Annalen. Two Volumes. Freiburg,
Germany: Weidmann, 1978.
Nock, Arthur Darby, Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: Clarendon, 1933.
Norris, Frederick W. Black Marks on the Communities Manuscripts, Journal of Early Christian
Studies 2:3 (1994): 44366.
OFlaherty, Wendy D. The Critical Study of Sacred Texts. Berkeley, California: Graduate
Theological Union, 1979.
Osborn, G. T. Why Did Decius and Valerian Proscribe Christianity? CH 2 (1933): 6777.
Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House, 1979.
Painter, John. Marks Gospel: Worlds in Conflict. London: Routledge, 1997.
Palmer, Darryl W. Atheism, Apologetic, and Negative Theology in the Greek Apologists of
the Second Century, VC 37, 3 (1983): 23459.
Parker, D. C. Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text. Cambridge: Cambridge
. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Parker, D. C., Taylor, D. G. K., and Goodacre, M. S. The Dura-Europas Gospel Harmony.
Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts. D. G. K. Taylor, ed. SBLTS 1. Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 1999: 192228.
Parker, D. C. and Amphoux, C.-B., eds. Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June 1994.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996.
Parson, Mikeal C. A Christological Tendency in P75. JBL 105 (1986): 46379.
Parvis, Merrill M. The Nature and Tasks of New Testament Textual Criticism: An Appraisal.
Journal of Religion 32 (1952): 16574.
Patrick, John. The Apology of Origen in Reply to Celsus: A Chapter in the History of Apologetics.
Edinburgh, 1892.
Petersen, William L. Tatians Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in
Scholarship. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.
., ed. Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission. Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.
Petzer, Jacobus H. The History of the New Testament TextIts Reconstruction, Significance,
and Use in New Testament Textual Criticism. In New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis
and Church History: A Discussion of Methods, ed. B. Aland and J. Delobel. Kampen, The
Netherlands: Pharos, 1994: 132.
Pichler, Karl. Streit um das Christentum: Der Angriff des Kelsos und die Antwort des Origenes. Frankfurtam-Main, 1980.
Plooij, D. A Fragment of Tatians Diatessaron in Greek, ExTim 46 (1934/5): 47176.
Plummer, A. Luke. ICC 29. Fifth Edition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922.
Porter, C. L. Papyrus Bodmer XV (P 75) and the Text of Codex Vaticanus, JBL 81 (1962):
36376.
262
Price, R. M. Hellenization and Logos Doctrine in Justin Martyr, VC 42 (1988): 1823.

Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. 4 volumes. Utrecht-Antwerp: Spectrum, 195086.
Quispel, G. M. Minucii Felicis Octavius. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973.
. Marcion and the Text of the New Testament, VC 52 (1998): 34960.
Rankin, David. Tertullian and the Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Rendall, Gerald H. Minucius Felix: Octavius. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1960.
Rice, George. Western Non-Interpolations: A Defense of the Apostolate, in Luke Acts: New
Perspectives from the SBL Seminar, edited by Charles H. Talbert. New York: Crossroad, 1984:
116.
Riddle, D. W. Textual Criticism as a Historical Discipline, Anglican Theological Review 18 (1936):
22033.
Roberts, C. H. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. London: Oxford University
Press, 1979.
Ross, J. M. Floating Words: Their Significance for Textual Criticism. NTS 38 (1992):
153156.
. The Rejected Words in Luke 9:5456, Expository Times 84 (197273): 8588.
Rougier, Louis. Celse Contre les Chretiens: la raction paenne sous lempire romain. Theoriques, Vol. I;
Alain de Benoit, ed. Paris: Copernic, 1977.
Royse, James R. Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text. The Text of the New
Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Bart D. Ehrman and
Michael W. Holmes, eds. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995: 23952.
Ryan, Rosalie. The Women from Galilee and Discipleship in Luke, Biblical Theology Bulletin 15
(1985): 5659.
Samain, P. LAccusation de magie contre le Christ dans les vangiles. Ephemerides Theologicae
Lovanienses 15 (1938): 44990.
Sanders, E. P., ed. Jewish and Christian Self Determination. Volume 1: The Shaping of Christianity in the
Second and Third Centuries. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.
. Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Sawyer, Deborah F. Women and Religion in the First Christian Centuries. London: Routledge, 1996.
Scheidweiler, F. The Gospel of Nicodemus, Acts of Pilate and Christs Descent Into Hell.
Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds. The New Testament Apocrypha. 2
Volumes. R. McL. Wilson, trans. Philadelphia: Westminster, 196366: I.44484.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to John. New York: Seabury Press, 1980.
Schoedel, W. R. In Praise of a King: A Rhetorical Pattern in Athenagoras. Disciplina Nostra:
In Memory of Robert F. Evans, ed. D. F. Winslow. Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic
Foundation, 1979: 6990.
. Christian Atheism and the Peace of the Roman Empire, CH 42 (1973): 30919.
, ed. and trans. Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Schssler Fiorenza, Elizabeth, ed. Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity.
South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976.
Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. Donald H. Madvig, trans. Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1977.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
263
. The Good News According to Matthew. David Green, trans. Atlanta: John Knox Press,
1975.
Shelton, Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History. New York: Oxford
Sherwin-White, A. N. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1985.
. The Early Persecutions and the Roman Law Again, JTS n. s. III, 2 (October, 1952):
199213.
. Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?An Amendment, Past and Present 27
(1964): 237.
Simpson, A. D. M. Minucii Felicis Octavius: Prolegomena, Text and Critical Notes. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1938.
Skeat, T. C. Irenaeus and the Four-Gospel Canon, NovT 34 (1992): 19499.
Smith, D. Moody. Johannine Christianity: Essays on Its Setting, Sources, and Theology. Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press, 1984.
. The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965.
. John. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.
Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. New York: , 1978.
. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1973.
Snodgrass, Klyne. Western Non-Interpolations. JBL 91 (1972): 36979.
Ste. Croix, G. E. M. de. Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted? Past and Present 26 (1963):
638.
. Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?A Rejoinder, Past and Present 27 (1964):
2833.
Stendahl, Krister. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1968.
Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, LukeActs and Apologetic
Historiography. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992.
Stewart-Sykes, Alistair. Melito of Sardis: On Pascha. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press,
2001.
Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources,
Authorship, and Dates. Eleventh Edition; New York: St. Martins Press, 1964. First edition
published in London: MacMillan, 1924.
Talbert, Charles H. Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the
Johannine Epistles. New York: Crossroad, 1994.
_. Reading Luke: A New Commentary for Preachers. London: SPCK, 1982.
Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Second Edition. New York: St. Martins Press,
1966.
Tetlow, Elizabeth. Women and Ministry in the New Testament. New York: Paulist Press, 1980.
Thayse, Andr. Matthieu: Lvangile Revisit. Brussells: ditions Racine, 1998.
Theissen, Gerd. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Eng. trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1978.
. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983.
264
Titus, E. L. The Motivation of Changes Made in the New Testament Text by Justin Martyr
and Clement of Alexandria: A Study in the Origin of New Testament Variation.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago, 1942.
Torjesen, Karen Jo. When Women Were Priests. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.
Trigg, Joseph Wilson. Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church. Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1983.
. Origen. London: Routledge, 1998.
Turner, C. H., A Textual Commentary on Mark I, JTS 28 (192627): 14558.
. Thophile dAntioche contre Celse: A Autolycos III. Revue des tudes Augustiniennes 17
(1971): 20325.
Visotsky, Burton L. Overturning the Lamp, JJS 38 (1987): 7280.
Walzer, Richard. Galen on Jews and Christians. London: Oxford University Press, 1949.
Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1882. Reprinted Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1988.
Whittaker, Molly, ed. and trans. Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1982.
Wilken, Robert. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.
. Toward a Social Interpretation of Early Christian Apologetics. CH 39 (1970):
43758.
. Alexandria: A School for Training in Virtue. Schools of Thought in the Christian Tradition.
Patrick Henry, ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984: 1530.
Williams, C. S. C. Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1951.
Winter, Paul. The Trial of Jesus as a Rebel Against Rome, Jewish Quarterly 16 (1968): 3137.
. On the Trial of Jesus. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1961.
Wisse, Frederick. The Nature and Purpose of Redactional Changes in Early Christian Texts:
The Canonical Gospels. The Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text,
and Transmission. William L. Petersen, ed. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press,
1989: 3953.
Wisselink, Willem F. Assimilation as a Criterion for Establishing the Text. Kampen:
Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989.
Witherington, Ben, The Anti-Feminist Tendencies of the Western Text in Acts, JBL 103
(1984): 8284.
. On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other DisciplesLuke
8:13, ZNW 70 (1979): 24348.
. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.
Wolf, G., ed. Porphyrii de Philosophia Ex Oraculis Haurienda. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962.
Original edition, 1856.
Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. J. C. G. Grieg, trans. Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1971.
German edition Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien. Gttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht,
1963. Original German publication, 1901.
Wright, Leon E. Alterations to the Words of Jesus as Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
265
Zeegers-Vander Vorst, N. Les Citations du Nouveau Testament dans les livres Autolycus de
Thophile dAntioche. Texte und Untersuchungen 115 (1975): 37182.
Zuntz, Gnther. The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum. London: Oxford
GENERAL INDEX
assimilation, 72, 74, 79, 86-89, 99, 106,
109, 110, 112-114, 118, 126, 127,
135, 136, 164, 166, 169, 175, 179,
211, 232, 264
atheism, 24, 26, 34, 39, 47, 49, 55, 143,
148, 149, 204, 231, 261, 262
Athenagoras, vii, 18, 27, 39, 42, 43, 46-49,
55, 62, 81, 82, 129, 134, 148, 149,
154, 166, 173, 176, 180, 196, 197,
205, 209, 212, 231, 252, 262
Augustus, 3, 38, 50, 59, 68, 119, 209, 216,
257
Aune, D., 120, 121, 125, 251
Baarda, T., 44, 82-84, 88-90, 248, 251
Barnard, L. W., 37, 42, 43, 46, 47, 200, 252
Barnes, T. D., 33, 54, 55, 83, 146, 199,
204-206, 252, 256
Barrett, C. K., 15, 94, 153, 231, 238, 252
Bauer, Walter, 2, 11, 18, 173, 252, 253
Bellinzoni, A. J., 43, 252
Bengel, Johannes Albrecht, 7
Benko, S., 1, 3, 20, 24-27, 29, 30, 32, 112,
113, 119, 121, 134, 141-143, 146,
206, 207, 226, 252
Bezae, 1, 15, 76, 79-81, 92, 98, 99, 116,
118, 128, 131, 133, 150-153, 159-161,
163, 172, 179, 181-183, 185, 186,
211, 212, 214, 225, 232, 233, 238,
248, 252, 255, 257, 258, 261
Brown, Raymond, 85, 86, 89, 94, 99, 153,
216-219, 253
Byzantine, 11, 79, 113, 171, 179
Caesarean, 11, 78, 79, 98, 106, 113, 118,
119, 131, 168, 180, 212, 227, 260
cannibalism, 35, 47-49, 55, 141, 148, 149,
153-155, 231, 260
carpenter, viii, 31, 102, 105, 115, 117-119
Celsus, vii, 2, 3, 18-21, 27, 31, 32, 34, 40,
41, 44, 48, 53, 61, 62, 64, 69, 78, 80,
Acts of Pilate, 220-223, 262

Ad Autolycum, 48, 49, 60, 256, 260
adultery, 45, 48, 142, 149, 180, 181, 231
Aland, Barbara, 4-8, 86, 130, 156, 163,
192, 242, 243, 246, 251, 253, 255, 261
Aland, Kurt, 5, 7, 8, 86, 156, 192, 242, 251
Alexander the False Prophet, 27
Alexandrian, 51, 53, 79, 89, 92, 108, 131,
164, 180, 242, 260
Allison, D., 77, 85, 86, 108, 112, 113, 128,
171, 174, 188, 251
Altaner, B., 52, 54, 55, 251
Andresen, Carl, 19, 20, 27, 31, 40, 41, 59,
61, 101, 200, 251, 261
anger, 129-134
antiquity, vii, viii, 1, 2, 4, 9, 20, 22, 29, 34,
35, 39, 41, 46, 49, 52, 56, 59-61, 63,
65, 66, 71, 76, 82, 92, 106, 119, 121,
123, 125, 133, 137, 143, 146, 153,
154, 177, 203, 237, 241, 249, 257
anti-Judaic, 10, 15, 159, 217, 225, 238, 240,
249, 255, 257
Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, 33, 83, 246
apologetic interests, vii, ix, 10, 15, 17, 56,
57, 60, 70, 75, 76, 80, 85, 98, 100,
108, 113, 115, 118, 122, 124, 128,
134, 137, 151, 162, 164, 165, 169,
174, 188, 189, 191, 195, 197, 213,
215, 217, 220, 225, 227, 234, 237,
239, 240, 244, 245, 247, 248
apologetic response, vii, 5, 23, 35, 57, 78,
97
Apostolic Traditions, The, 227
Apuleius, vii, 2, 3, 26, 29, 30, 119, 120,
176, 178, 196, 259
Aristides, vii, 3, 18, 35, 37, 49, 62, 64, 84,
129, 134, 138, 146-149, 165, 188,
195, 196, 231, 252, 257
267
268
82-84, 86, 97, 101-103, 110, 111, 113,

116, 117, 119, 121, 124, 129, 134,
138, 141, 147, 148, 161, 162, 167,
168, 175, 177, 178, 192-194, 196,
203, 207, 208, 210, 226, 227, 229,
230, 239, 246, 249, 253, 256-258,
260, 261
Chadwick, Henry, xii, 2, 19, 21, 31, 37, 38,
53, 59, 82, 101, 110, 117, 152, 162,
167, 177, 196, 210, 220, 226, 227,
239, 253, 254
Christians, viii, 1-3, 16, 18-21, 24-35, 37,
38, 37-39, 46-48, 50, 52-57, 59, 61,
62, 65, 67-69, 71, 76, 78, 82, 83, 97,
100-107, 109-113, 115, 119, 121, 124,
128, 134, 141-149, 151, 153-155, 161,
162, 165-169, 172-176, 180, 193, 194,
196, 199, 201-210, 213, 215, 217,
220-222, 224, 226, 227, 231, 238,
239, 252, 254, 256-260, 263, 264
Clark, Elizabeth A., 52, 189, 253
Clark, Kenneth W., 13, 240, 253
Clement of Alexandria, vii, 12, 45, 51, 87,
97, 112, 120, 122, 149, 151, 155, 171,
173, 192, 196, 210, 233, 263, 264
Codex, 1, 11, 15, 71, 75, 76, 79-81, 92, 98,
99, 116, 118, 128, 131, 133, 150-153,
159, 163, 166, 171, 172, 179,
181-183, 185, 186, 189, 190, 211,
212, 214, 215, 225, 232, 233, 238,
242, 248, 249, 252, 255, 257, 258, 261
Colwell, Ernest C., 21, 67, 88, 185, 241,
254
Commodus, 47, 81, 205, 221
consistency, vii, viii, 34, 59, 84, 90, 131,
164, 189
Constantine, 3, 7, 24, 32, 201, 226, 235,
257
Contra Celsum, 19, 31, 32, 53, 54, 59, 82,
86, 98, 101-103, 110, 111, 113, 152,
162, 177, 196, 210, 239, 247, 253
contumacia, 202, 204
Crescens, 3, 26, 207
crime, 39, 109, 119, 121, 142, 145, 155,

181, 206, 219
criminal, 10, 30, 101-105, 108, 111, 146,
201, 207, 208, 240
Croke, B., 33, 69, 254
Crouzel, Henri, 31, 52, 53, 86, 101, 254
crucifixion, 19, 83, 102, 105, 106, 110, 111,
183, 217, 221, 224-227
Davies, W. D., 77, 85, 86, 108, 112, 113,
128, 171, 174, 188, 251
Dialogue with Trypho, 37, 39, 41, 42, 52, 54,
105, 107, 117
Diatessaron, 10, 44-46, 72-74, 89, 90, 135,
137, 183, 184, 240, 241, 251, 257,
259, 261
disciples, 16, 35, 66, 69, 71, 75, 80, 94, 97,
107, 114, 122, 132, 147, 150, 151,
158, 166, 168-173, 175, 182, 192,
193, 195, 196, 213, 241
dogmatic, 9, 10, 13, 23, 88, 238
Droge, A. J., 41, 44, 46, 59, 62, 63, 254
Ehrman, Bart D., xi, 2, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 21,
23, 67, 92, 118, 131, 133, 134, 151,
156-159, 181, 182, 186, 238, 240,
243, 246, 248, 252-255, 262
Encratism, 45, 90
Epictetus, 3, 26, 34
Epicureans, 28
Epistle to Diognetus, 209
Epp, Eldon J., 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 23, 92,
131, 159, 164, 186, 217, 225, 238,
249, 255
Erasmus, 7, 8
Eusebius, 32, 33, 35, 36, 44-48, 50, 51, 54,
63, 71, 86, 124, 135, 137, 146, 166,
189, 208, 209, 212, 220, 223, 246,
253, 259
exoneration of Pilate, viii, 210, 216, 217,
219, 225, 235
external evidence, 9, 67, 72, 74, 77, 88, 91,
92, 95, 97, 115, 128, 131, 133, 135,
163, 195, 212, 231, 245, 254
fanatics, viii, 35, 57, 141, 148, 196, 241
Farmer, W. R., 86, 190, 191, 256
GENERAL INDEX
Fee, Gordon D., 6, 87, 131, 186, 246, 255,
256
females, viii, 57, 141, 148, 176, 178, 188,
189, 196, 241
Fiorenza, 16, 23, 62, 176, 178, 179, 181,
238, 256, 262
Fitzmyer, J., 8, 76, 79, 84, 85, 109, 155,
156, 182, 187, 212-214, 256
flagitia, 142, 201, 202, 204
fools, viii, 30, 35, 57, 141, 144, 145, 148,
167, 196, 241
Freer logion, viii, 189, 195, 196, 241
Fronto, Marcus Cornelius, vii, 2, 3, 30, 35,
48, 54, 145, 154, 161, 196, 226
Galen, 2, 3, 20, 34, 37, 177, 178, 227, 256,
264
Gamble, Harry Y., 3, 4, 256
Geffcken, Johannes, 18, 37, 46, 47, 176,
256
Gospel of Peter, 21, 89, 183, 220, 253
Grant, R. M., 2, 31, 37-44, 48, 50-52, 60,
84, 85, 209, 219, 221, 256
Greenlee, Harold, 13, 257
Griesbach, J. J., 7, 87, 256
gullible, 28-30, 35, 141, 144, 145, 148, 167,
172, 196
Haines-Eitzen, Kim, 4, 9, 21-23, 108, 118,
247, 257
harmonization, viii, 12, 44, 56, 79, 80, 82,
83, 86, 88-90, 99, 100, 118, 162, 166,
174, 182, 211, 225, 251
Harnack, Adolf von, 32, 33, 69, 70, 83, 96,
257
Harris, J. Rendel, 10, 12, 23, 36, 37, 62, 76,
84, 129, 138, 165, 188, 232, 237, 240,
257
Head, Peter, 17, 29, 30, 51, 53, 67, 99, 102,
135, 143, 145, 146, 163, 169, 226, 258
Hierocles, 124
Hippolytus, 45, 46, 227, 254
Hort, Fenton John Anthony, xiii, 4, 8-11,
13, 21, 71, 97, 156, 158, 190, 194,
195, 238, 252, 264
Hurtado, Larry W., 66, 247, 258
269
hypocrisy, 233
immorality, 24, 37, 39, 48, 109, 146, 185,
209
inconsistency, viii, 82, 84, 90, 91, 94, 98,
99, 158
internal evidence, 92
International Greek New Testament
Project (IGNTP), xii, 8, 128, 159
interpolation, 77, 110, 113, 123, 134, 136,
137, 153, 156, 158, 159, 187, 191,
231, 232
intrinsic probability, 116, 214
Jerome, 32, 33, 45, 55, 66, 68, 70, 71, 99,
147, 189, 190
Jesus, viii, 1, 3, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24,
27, 30-36, 38, 39, 41-44, 50, 53, 56,
57, 59, 61, 64, 68-72, 74, 76-83, 85,
91, 93-98, 100-135, 137-139, 141,
143, 146-148, 150, 151, 155, 157,
158, 161, 163, 164, 166-174, 176-183,
185, 186, 188, 189, 192-196, 199,
200, 203, 205, 207-210, 212-226,
228-230, 232-234, 239, 241, 246, 252,
255-258, 263, 264
John the Baptizer, viii, 66, 78-80, 150
Julian, 18, 33, 34, 65, 68, 70, 83, 96, 103,
173, 260
Justin Martyr, vii, 1, 2, 12, 26, 37, 40, 42,
43, 63, 77, 84, 87, 97, 107, 207, 221,
252, 256, 262, 264
Juvenal, 18, 176, 199
kingdom, viii, 57, 81, 103, 136, 208-216,
242, 256
Klijn, A. F. J., 12, 185, 259
Koridethi, 11, 98, 225
Kraeling, C. H., 183-185, 241, 259
Labriolle, Pierre de, 18-20, 24-26, 30, 31,
33, 65, 68, 69, 96, 97, 101, 103, 141,
143, 259
Lagrange, M.-J., 65, 66, 70, 118, 153, 175,
184, 185, 259
Lake, Kirsopp, 10, 11, 36, 45, 50, 85, 88,
164, 200, 238, 253, 254, 259
lawful, 137, 205
270
Legatio, 46, 47, 62, 81, 209, 262

Lucian of Samosata, vii, 3, 26, 48, 143, 196
Macarius Magnes, 32, 33, 83, 96, 147, 246
MacDonald, Margaret, 30, 165, 176-178,
228, 230, 260
mad, 138, 139, 193, 210
magic, 20, 29, 33, 36, 119-125, 127-129,
144, 147, 201, 221, 226, 229, 234,
251, 258, 260
magician, viii, 27, 31, 61, 101, 105,
119-125, 127, 128, 207, 228, 256, 263
Majority, 5, 67, 70, 79, 91, 95, 131, 134,
137, 156, 159-161, 171, 181, 183,
184, 190, 191, 202, 206, 213, 214,
227, 229, 233, 238
Marcion, 43-45, 76, 97, 182, 257, 262
Marcovich, J., 44, 48, 77, 260
Marcus Aurelius, 2, 3, 26, 30, 34, 38,
46-48, 50, 81, 142, 146, 199-201, 203,
205, 208, 209, 221, 222, 256, 259
Martial, 18, 199
Meeks, Wayne, 173, 260
Melito of Sardis, vii, 50, 55, 106, 212, 220,
221, 257, 263
memoirs of the apostles, 42
Meredith, Antony, 33, 34, 65, 68, 70, 83,
96, 103, 260
Metzger, Bruce M., 3, 5, 7, 8, 65, 70-73,
75, 77, 80, 86, 87, 91, 92, 98, 99, 106,
109, 114-116, 118, 119, 123, 126-128,
132, 133, 135, 137, 150, 151, 153,
156, 159, 164, 168, 169, 179, 181,
182, 187-190, 213, 214, 253, 255, 260
Minucius Felix, vii, 30, 52, 54, 62, 101,
117, 145, 148, 149, 154, 155, 166,
196, 207, 208, 251, 254, 259, 262
miracle, 14, 115, 120-122, 125, 127, 132,
176, 186, 194, 263
modification, 12-15, 49, 78, 79, 82, 93, 94,
97, 98, 104, 108, 111-116, 118, 119,
122-124, 126, 128, 134, 139, 148,
150, 152, 153, 157, 164, 165, 166,
168, 169, 176, 181-185, 187, 189,
211, 213, 219, 225, 228, 230, 240,

241, 244, 246, 247, 249, 254
Moule, C. F. D., 14, 252, 258
Nero, 25, 122, 142, 199, 200, 205, 207,
220, 259
Neutral, 8, 11, 28, 97, 190, 242
novelty, vii, 24, 26, 34, 59, 61, 62
Octavius, 29, 30, 35, 52, 54, 101, 117, 145,
148, 149, 154, 155, 165, 207, 208,
251, 254, 259, 262, 263
odium humani generis, 25, 143
Oedipal orgies, 35
Old Latin, 70, 72, 76, 77, 79, 92, 99, 109,
110, 115, 128, 131, 150, 152, 159,
163, 172, 181, 189, 192, 232, 233
Oratio ad Graecos, 44, 45, 260, 264
Origen, vii, 3, 19, 21, 27, 31-33, 43, 52-54,
59, 61-64, 66, 67, 69, 82-84, 86, 97,
98, 101-103, 110, 111, 113, 117-119,
121, 122, 124, 130, 135, 137, 148,
152, 162, 164, 166-168, 174, 177,
186, 191-194, 196, 197, 203, 210,
212, 227, 229, 239, 246, 249,
253-256, 260, 261, 264
original text, 6, 9, 13, 16, 57, 67, 75, 92,
115, 118, 135, 138, 161, 163, 164,
168, 173, 175, 176, 186, 211, 224,
227, 229, 233, 238, 242, 247
orthodox, 1, 2, 8, 16, 17, 21, 52, 133, 158,
159, 238, 254, 255
pagan, vii, viii, 1-3, 5, 17-21, 23-27, 29-32,
34-37, 39, 40, 44-46, 48-57, 60, 61,
65, 69, 76, 78, 82, 85, 86, 96, 97,
100-106, 109, 110, 112, 113, 117,
119, 121-124, 128, 134, 137, 139,
141-143, 145-150, 153-155, 161-163,
165-167, 173, 174, 176-178, 180, 187,
192, 193, 196, 199, 203, 205-208,
211, 212, 214, 215, 223, 226,
228-230, 239, 241, 246, 249, 250,
252, 254, 260
papyrus, 5, 91, 92, 242, 255, 258, 261
GENERAL INDEX
Parker, D. C., 5, 10, 17, 118, 131, 150,
151, 184, 238, 243, 248, 252, 255,
258, 259, 261
Parvis, Merill, 12, 261
Paul, xi, 2, 3, 33, 41, 103, 105, 117, 162,
170, 192, 194, 205, 209, 219, 220,
252, 254-256, 260, 264
Peregrinus, 26-29, 105, 143, 144, 167, 178
persecution, 18, 23, 30, 47, 68, 103, 112,
199, 201, 203, 205, 206, 221, 226,
239, 256, 258, 259
Peter, 17, 21, 33, 43, 67, 68, 80, 89, 103,
136, 141, 166, 173, 175, 183, 189,
192, 193, 195, 209, 220, 253, 257, 258
Petersen, William, 6, 7, 44-46, 82, 89, 90,
183, 184, 191, 243, 251, 259, 261, 264
Pilate, viii, 57, 99, 111, 128, 210, 216-226,
235, 241, 253, 255, 262
Plato, 21, 37, 41, 59, 61, 63, 129, 146, 148,
256
Platonism, 19, 20, 41
Pliny, vii, 1-3, 20, 24, 25, 34, 113, 141, 142,
177, 178, 200, 202, 204-206, 222,
260, 263
Porphyry, vii, 18, 19, 21, 32-35, 60, 65,
68-71, 75, 76, 83, 96, 97, 103, 124,
147, 154, 193, 195, 196, 203, 208,
239, 246, 249, 252, 253, 257, 258, 260
prayer, 10, 50, 56, 80, 87, 114-116, 150,
151, 174, 212, 213
profane temperament, viii, 105, 129, 130,
241
prophecy, viii, 39, 41, 60, 64, 65, 68, 72,
103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 119, 124, 221
prostration, 162-165, 196, 229, 230
Protoevangelium of James, 188
Pythagoreans, 37
Quadratus, vii, 35, 36
Quasten, J., 36-39, 45-48, 50-52, 55, 71,
82, 129, 195, 260, 262
revolutionary, 101, 104, 105, 108, 139,
207, 258
Riddle, D. W., 11, 12, 206, 262
271
Roman state, viii, 37, 57, 199-201, 203,

204, 206, 208, 209, 220, 221
Rome, 20, 25, 26, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 45,
54, 56, 104, 119, 121, 141-143, 192,
199, 200, 203, 207-209, 213, 216,
224, 226, 227, 241, 252, 254, 256, 264
Royse, James, 67, 88, 262
Sanders, E. P., 87, 88, 262
scribes, viii, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17,
20-23, 56, 57, 60, 64, 65, 67-71,
74-82, 87-90, 92, 98, 100, 101,
104-106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114-116,
124-128, 131, 133, 134, 136, 139,
141, 143, 150, 158, 161, 164-168,
170-172, 174, 175, 177, 179-181, 183,
187, 188, 191, 196, 197, 210, 212,
213, 215, 226, 231-234, 237, 239-243,
245, 247-250
secrecy, viii, 125, 178, 210, 226-228, 230,
231, 234, 241, 252
Sherwin-White, A. N., 142, 201, 202, 204,
206, 263
Sinaiticus, 8, 11, 71, 72, 75, 92, 98, 115
Smith, D. Moody, 43, 81, 89, 217, 263
Smith, Morton, 125, 263
Socrates, 38, 39, 41, 42, 144
sorcery, 36, 46, 102, 122, 177, 221
Ste. Croix, G. E. M. de, 142, 201-204, 206,
263
Stoics, 3, 37
Streeter, B. H., 10, 11, 21, 187, 191, 263
Suetonius, vii, 3, 25, 34, 119, 142, 201, 204
superstition, 1, 20, 25, 26, 34, 46, 101, 111,
113, 141, 145, 162, 178, 204, 206, 229
Syriac, 37, 67, 70, 72-74, 77, 79, 98, 99,
106, 109, 110, 112, 115, 118, 135,
159-162, 183-185, 192, 215, 233, 248,
249, 252-254
Tacitus, vii, 2, 3, 25, 34, 99, 111, 142, 143,
154, 200, 204, 207, 258, 261
Tatian, vii, 26, 38, 39, 44-46, 48, 49, 52,
60, 62, 63, 82, 84, 90, 116, 129, 137,
148, 149, 154, 176, 180, 184, 185,
194-197, 249, 251, 264
272
Taylor, V., 67, 69, 110, 114, 118, 123, 126,

131, 133, 134, 168, 175, 179, 184,
189, 190, 195, 227, 228, 247, 248,
258, 261, 263
temporal priority, viii, 49, 78, 79, 82
Tendenzkritik, 14
Tertullian, vii, 27, 45, 46, 50, 54-56, 59, 62,
112, 122, 148, 149, 151, 154, 155,
159, 162, 164-166, 173, 192, 203,
205, 212, 213, 220, 222, 225, 251,
252, 262
textual criticism, 4-8, 10-18, 67, 87, 88, 92,
131, 164, 184, 238, 242, 243,
246-248, 251-259, 261, 262
Textus Receptus, 7, 193
Theodosius, 24, 32
Theophilus of Antioch, vii, 48, 49, 55, 60,
62, 84, 89, 90, 112, 180, 193, 209,
256, 257
Thyestean feasts, 35
Tischendorf, Constantine von, 7
Titus, E. L, 12, 87, 97, 264
Torjesen, Karen Jo, 16, 178, 228, 238, 264
Trajan, 1, 2, 20, 25, 36, 141, 142, 147,
199-201, 204-206, 222
transcriptional probabilities, 14, 71, 73, 88,
92, 94, 116, 136, 157, 245, 247
treason, 24, 50, 55, 56, 104, 109, 207, 209,
215
True Doctrine, 19, 27, 31, 40, 44, 86,
101-103, 247, 258
True Logos, 27, 31, 239
Tune, E. W., 9, 78, 88
Turner, C. H., 228, 264
Valentinian, 32, 51
Vaticanus, 8, 11, 80, 92, 214, 227, 261
versions, 73, 77, 78, 118, 127, 150, 159,
160, 170, 193, 245, 248, 252, 253, 260
Vulgate, 6, 71, 73, 160
Walzer, R., 2, 264
Washingtonianus, 190
Westcott, Brooke Foos, xiii, 4, 8, 10, 11,
71, 156, 190, 195, 238, 242, 252, 264
Western, 8, 72, 91, 92, 106, 131, 133,

135, 137, 139, 156, 159, 163, 164,
168, 171, 179-181, 194, 211, 225,
231, 232, 248
Western non-interpolations, 8, 156, 183,
194, 262, 263
Wilken, R., 3, 24, 32, 51, 83, 134, 141, 143,
208, 264
Williams, C. S. C., 12, 87, 195, 251, 264
Wisse, F., 191, 264
Wisselink, W., 86, 87, 89, 90, 264
Witherington, Ben, 16, 114, 168, 172, 180,
181, 238, 264
Wright, Leon, 13, 264
Zuntz, Gnther, 12, 88, 265
INDEX OF TEXTUAL VARIANTS

15:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109-111
15:41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181, 182
16:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 196
2:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98, 99, 255
3:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137, 138
5:33 . . . . . . 150, 163, 227, 228, 230
6:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122, 123
6:3 . . . . . . . 118, 119, 137, 239, 246
9:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
9:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
9:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151, 152
9:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Matthew
1:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
10:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112, 215
13:35 . . . 34, 65, 66, 70-72, 74, 75,
244
15:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137, 244
16:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72, 74, 78
17:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
19:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
21:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 74, 77
21:44 . . . . . . . . 134, 136, 137, 244
23:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232, 233
24:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
25:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
26:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224, 233
27:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . 215, 223, 224
27:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
27:35 . . . . . . 72, 74, 106, 108, 111
28:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 80
4:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
5:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 229
5:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113, 114, 180
6:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
9:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113, 114
9:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127, 244
Mark
1:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
1:2 . . . . . . . . . 34, 65, 69-72, 75, 77
1:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
1:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
1:41 . . 130, 131, 133, 134, 229, 244
1:44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
10:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . 167, 176, 229
10:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
13:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114, 115
14:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168-171, 244
15:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
15:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Luke
1:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
11:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211, 212
11:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
11:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
11:44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
12:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211, 213
15:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
19:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211, 213
2:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136, 188
20:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
21:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
22:29, 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
23:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 111
23:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211, 214
23:49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
23:52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
23:53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
23:55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
24:51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
3:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 67, 68, 99
4:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
5:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
5:33 . . . . . . 150, 163, 227, 228, 230
6:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
8:3 . . . . 16, 181, 182, 186, 229, 254
273
274

9:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
9:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
9:54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 76
John
1:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
11:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227, 230
19:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98, 132
4:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187, 244
5:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
6:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7:8 . . . . . . . 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 239
9:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Acts
1:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
1:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 166
17:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
17:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Colossians
4:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Apologetic Discourse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apologetic Discourse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE

AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

Copyright 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed in The Netherlands

THE PEN AND THE SWORD: APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE

ANTIQUITY, HARMONY, AND

Chapter III. JESUS: ACCORDING TO THE SCRIBES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter IV. FANATICS, FOOLS, AND FEMALES: SCRIBES

WHEN QUIRE MEETS EMPIRE: SCRIBAL

Chapter VII. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Scottish Journal of Theology

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

So challenged, however, Christian advocates arose in the form of literary

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

these writings, exactly four Gospelsa number Irenaeus believed to be divinely

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

there exist hundreds of copies of ancient translations of Christian scriptures (not

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

B. H. Streeter, Four Gospels, xxvii.

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

D. W. Riddle, Textual Criticism as a Historical Discipline, 221.

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

sacred scriptures.40 He even theorized the possibility of realigning textual affinities on

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

Moules questions may be especially useful if redirected to those textual variants

K. W. Clark, Theological Relevance of Textual Variation, 16.

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

Eldon J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Cantabrigiensis in Acts (Cambridge:

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

E. J. Epp, Theological Tendency, 13.

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

RELEVANT WRITINGS PERTAINING TO EARLY CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, e.g., 128 and 25156.

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

Cels. II.74, Chadwick, 122; see also I.12, II.77.

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

Kim Haines-Eitzen, Guardian of Letters.

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of

Although Horts genius and legacy remain undiminished, Haines-Eitzen usefully

K. Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters, 112.

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

hurled pejorative lances at Christians, accusing them of immorality, atheism, impiety,

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

For more on Fronto see P. Labriolle, La Raction paenne, 8794.

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION

THE PEN AND THE SWORD

APOLOGETIC DISCOURSE AND THE SCRIBAL TRADITION